Case 2301213/2019 · Employment Tribunal

Mr A Butt v EE Limited — 2020

Case reference: 2301213/2019
Decision date: 2 January 2020
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Cheetham QC
Venue: Croydon

Indexed: 19 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Mr A Butt

Respondent

EE Limited

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The Tribunal refused the claimant's application to amend his claim to add a complaint that he was dismissed by reason of making a qualified disclosure.

The Tribunal held that it did not have jurisdiction to hear the unfair dismissal claim because the claimant had been employed for less than two years. The judgment did not determine the wrongful dismissal claim, which was listed for a separate hearing before a judge sitting alone, and existing directions continued to apply with an additional direction for the claimant to send copies of his payslips to the respondent.

Claims and outcomes

3 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Whistleblowing	The claimant's application to amend his claim to add a complaint that he was dismissed by reason of making a qualified disclosure was refused.	Other	—	—
Unfair dismissal	The Tribunal held that it did not have jurisdiction to hear the unfair dismissal claim because the claimant had been employed for less than two years.	Dismissed	—	—
Wrongful dismissal	The judgment recorded that the wrongful dismissal claim would be heard separately; no substantive outcome was determined in this judgment.	Other	—	—

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.