Case 2300266/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr. Alan Rogan v Whyte Bikes Limited and 1 other — 2023
- Case reference
- 2300266/2021
- Decision date
- 9 January 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Mclaren Members
- Venue
- London South via CVP
- Panel members
- Mr. J Bendall, Mr. S Huggins
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mr. Alan Rogan
Respondents
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal heard the case at London South via CVP on 3 to 6 January 2023 and issued its reserved judgment on 9 January 2023. The unanimous decision was given by Employment Judge Mclaren with lay members Mr. J Bendall and Mr. S Huggins. The respondents were Whyte Bikes Limited and Mr. Guy Farrant.
On the disability discrimination claim, the tribunal held that neither respondent contravened section 13 of the Equality Act 2010. It therefore dismissed the disability discrimination claim. The judgment does not set out any remedy for that claim.
On the dismissal claim, the tribunal found that the claimant had made a number of qualifying protected disclosures relying upon ss.43B(1)(b) and 43B(1)(d) of the Employment Rights Act 1996, identified in the agreed issues list as items (a)(i) and (b)(i) to (iii). It then found that the sole or principal reason for the claimant's dismissal was those protected disclosures, so the dismissal was automatically unfair under s.103A ERA 1996.
The judgment is a liability judgment only and records no monetary award or other remedy.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The tribunal unanimously found that neither respondent contravened section 13 of the Equality Act 2010, so the disability discrimination claim did not succeed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found that the claimant had made qualifying protected disclosures under ss.43B(1)(b) and 43B(1)(d) of the Employment Rights Act 1996, and that the sole or principal reason for dismissal was those disclosures, so the dismissal was automatically unfair under s.103A ERA 1996. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- section 13 Equality Act 2010
- ss.43B(1)(b) and 43B(1)(d) Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.103A Employment Rights Act 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.