Case 2305897/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr L Blake-White v Govia Thameslink Railway Ltd and 4 others — 2024
- Case reference
- 2305897/2023
- Decision date
- 28 March 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ramsden
Parties
6 namedClaimant
Mr L Blake-White
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal struck out the claim under rule 37 after a hearing at which the claimant made representations on 11 and 12 March 2024. The judgment records that the claimant also referred to alleged criminal offences and to compliance with the Data Protection Act 2018, but he confirmed that those matters were not part of his claim and were only background.
In relation to the protected disclosure detriment complaint, the Tribunal held that it had no jurisdiction to consider the claim against the second to fifth respondents because a section 47B Employment Rights Act 1996 claim can only be brought against an employer. As to the first respondent, the alleged detriment was that personnel within the organisation viewed the claimant as a problem and not part of the solution, which the Tribunal said was far too vague to be tested and had no reasonable prospect of success.
The victimisation complaint, brought against the first and fifth respondents, was also struck out for no reasonable prospect of success. The Tribunal found that the fifth respondent's response to the claimant's request for help filling in a form was an appropriate response. The hearing fixed for 24 April 2024 did not take place.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | Protected disclosure detriment complaint under section 47B Employment Rights Act 1996. The Tribunal held it had no jurisdiction to consider the complaint against the second to fifth respondents because such a claim can only be brought against an employer, and held that the allegation against the first respondent that personnel viewed the claimant as 'a problem and not part of the solution' was too vague to be tested and had no reasonable prospect of success. | Struck out | — | — |
| Victimisation | Victimisation complaint brought against the first and fifth respondents. The Tribunal held that the fifth respondent's response to the claimant's request for help completing a form was an appropriate response and that the complaint had no reasonable prospect of success. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- rule 37
- no reasonable prospect of success
- 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.