Case 2301431/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Peters v London General Transport Services Limited t/a Go Ahead London — 2023
- Case reference
- 2301431/2022
- Decision date
- 7 February 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Barker
- Venue
- Croydon
- Panel members
- Mrs S Dengate, Mr W Dixon
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Peters
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal unanimously held that Mr M Peters was not automatically dismissed for having made protected disclosures contrary to s103A Employment Rights Act 1996, but that he was unfairly dismissed contrary to s94 Employment Rights Act 1996. The written record states that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested.
The compensation for unfair dismissal was recorded as agreed between the parties. The basic award was £8,704 and the compensatory award was £3,769.64, described as 7 weeks’ loss of sick pay and pension contributions from the date of dismissal. The total compensation awarded was £12,473.64.
The Tribunal also recorded that the Recoupment Regulations do not apply to the judgment and award.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | The Tribunal held that the claimant was not automatically dismissed for having made protected disclosures contrary to s103A Employment Rights Act 1996. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The Tribunal held that the claimant was unfairly dismissed contrary to s94 Employment Rights Act 1996. The compensation recorded in the judgment was agreed by the parties. | Upheld | — | £12,474 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £12,474
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £8,704
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £3,770
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
2 references- s103A Employment Rights Act 1996
- s94 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.