Case 2220669/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Nicholas Platt v Bidvest Noonan (UK) Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 2220669/2024
- Decision date
- 2 May 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Adkin
- Venue
- in public
- Panel members
- Ms S Aslett, Dr J Holgate
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Nicholas Platt
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal, sitting in public by CVP on 28, 29 and 30 April 2025 before Employment Judge Adkin with Ms S Aslett and Dr J Holgate, upheld Mr Nicholas Platt's complaint of automatic unfair dismissal because of a protected disclosure under section 103A of the Employment Rights Act 1996. It also upheld his complaint of detriment because of a protected disclosure under section 47B of the same Act.
The judgment records that there would be no reduction for contributory fault under section 123(6). No remedy was fixed in this liability judgment, and the tribunal noted that a remedy hearing had been listed. The judgment was sent to the parties on 2 May 2025.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | Complaint of automatic unfair dismissal because of a protected disclosure under section 103A ERA 1996. The tribunal found it well-founded and stated there would be no reduction for contributory fault under section 123(6). Remedy hearing listed. | Upheld | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | Complaint of detriment because of a protected disclosure under section 47B ERA 1996. The tribunal found it well-founded. Remedy hearing listed. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- section 103A ERA 1996
- section 47B ERA 1996
- section 123(6) ERA 1996
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.