Case 2214126/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Mark Reid v SDX Energy plc and 3 others — 2024
- Case reference
- 2214126/2023
- Decision date
- 30 September 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Anthony
- Venue
- London Central
- Panel members
- Mr A Fryer, Mr P Madelin
Parties
5 namedClaimant
Mr Mark Reid
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal held that the Claimant’s detriment complaints for making protected disclosures were partly well-founded. It found in his favour on Detriment 1, which was the letter of 30 November 2022 giving six months’ notice of termination and placing him on garden leave; Detriment 4, which was the termination of employment on 31 May 2023 and the resulting loss of salary and employee benefits; and Detriment 5, which was the 29 June 2023 letter from the First Respondent’s solicitors raising allegations about performance and conduct. The remaining detriment complaints were dismissed.
The Tribunal also upheld the ordinary unfair dismissal complaint under section 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. In addition, it upheld the complaint of automatic unfair dismissal for the making of protected disclosures under section 103A of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
On remedy principles, the Tribunal found that the Respondent unreasonably failed to comply with the ACAS Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures 2015 and that it was just and equitable to increase any compensatory award by 25% under section 207A of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. It found there should be no Polkey reduction and no reduction for contributory fault. The judgment does not set out the final monetary award figures.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | Detriment for making protected disclosures. Detriments 1, 4 and 5 were found well-founded and succeeded. The remaining detriment complaints were dismissed. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Ordinary unfair dismissal was found well-founded under section 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. | Upheld | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | Automatic unfair dismissal for the making of protected disclosures was found well-founded under section 103A of the Employment Rights Act 1996. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
6 references- s.98 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.103A Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.207A Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
- ACAS Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures 2015
- Polkey
- contributory fault
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.