Case 2302202/2019 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Respondent — 2020
- Case reference
- 2302202/2019
- Decision date
- 3 August 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hyams-Parish Members
- Venue
- London South
- Panel members
- Mrs S Dengate, Mr C Rogers
Parties
1 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal, sitting at London South on 3 August 2020 before Employment Judge Hyams-Parish with lay members Mrs S Dengate and Mr C Rogers, dealt with claims by Mr T Theodosiou against Oz Interactive Limited arising from alleged protected disclosures. The written record states that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that no written reasons would be provided unless requested.
The tribunal held that the claims that the claimant suffered a detriment because he made a protected disclosure, and that he was dismissed because he made a protected disclosure, were not well founded. Both claims were dismissed. The judgment does not set out the tribunal's detailed reasoning in the written record.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | The judgment states that the claim the Claimant suffered a detriment because he made a protected disclosure was not well founded and was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment states that the claim the Claimant was dismissed because he made a protected disclosure was not well founded and was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.