Case 2302540/2017 · Employment Tribunal
in person For the v Mr D Soanes, Solicitor — 2020
- Case reference
- 2302540/2017
- Decision date
- 20 February 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Truscott QC
- Panel members
- Ms A Donaldson, Ms SJ Murray
Parties
2 namedClaimant
in person For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal unanimously dismissed the claimant's constructive dismissal claim. It held that the claim was not well founded, and no award was recorded. The judgment does not set out any monetary remedy because none was made.
The tribunal accepted that the claimant made a protected disclosure to Mr Lewis in December 2016, but it found that he did not suffer a detriment contrary to section 47B of the Employment Rights Act 1996 because of that disclosure. The whistleblowing detriment claim was therefore dismissed.
The claimant's claim for unlawful deduction of wages, said to relate to non-payment of bonus, was also dismissed. The tribunal held that the deduction claim was not established. No compensation or other remedy was awarded on any claim.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive dismissal | The tribunal found the constructive dismissal claim was not well founded and dismissed it. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | The tribunal found that the claimant made a protected disclosure to Mr Lewis in December 2016, but did not suffer a detriment contrary to section 47B of the Employment Rights Act 1996 as a result. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The claim for unlawful deduction of wages relating to non-payment of bonus was not established and was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- section 47B 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.