Case 2301570/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S Oake v Ocado Central Services Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 2301570/2024
- Decision date
- 10 March 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Anderson
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr S Oake
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Anderson, sitting alone at London South and hearing the case in public by CVP on 5, 6 and 7 March 2025, recorded that Mr S Oake appeared in person and that Ocado Central Services Limited was represented by counsel. The written judgment dismisses the claimant's automatic unfair dismissal complaints under s.103A and s.100(1)(d) of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
The judgment also dismisses the claimant's detriment complaints under s.47B and s.44 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, covering whistleblowing and health and safety matters. The written record states that oral reasons were given at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days, so the published text contains the outcome but not a fuller reasons section or any remedy award.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The claimant's claims of automatically unfair dismissal under s.103A and s.100(1)(d) ERA 1996 were found not well founded and were dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | The claimant's claims of detriment due to whistleblowing under s.47B ERA 1996 and detriment due to raising health and safety matters under s.44 ERA 1996 were found not well founded and were dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- s.103A Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.100(1)(d) Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.47B Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.44 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.