Case 2301066/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Thrift v Belleville Brewing Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 2301066/2021
- Decision date
- 27 January 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Truscott KC
- Venue
- London South
- Panel members
- Mr S Khan, Mr J Hutchings
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Thrift
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal heard the case at London South on 26 and 27 January 2023 before Employment Judge Truscott KC sitting with panel members Mr S Khan and Mr J Hutchings. It gave a unanimous decision. The claimant, Mr M Thrift, appeared in person and the respondent, Belleville Brewing Limited, was represented by its director, Mr A Thomas.
The tribunal dismissed the claim for unfair dismissal based on the making of a protected disclosure under section 103A of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The written judgment records that this claim was not well founded. No written reasons were provided because reasons were given orally at the hearing, unless requested within 14 days.
The tribunal also dismissed the claim for unpaid expenses, recording that it was not established. The judgment does not record any award of compensation or other remedy, and no monetary figures are set out in the written decision.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | The judgment states that the claim for unfair dismissal for the making of a protected disclosure contrary to section 103A of the Employment Rights Act 1996 was not well founded and was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The judgment states that the claim for unpaid expenses was not established and was dismissed. The text does not specify any separate monetary award for this claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- section 103A of the 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.