Case 2307425/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Botting v London Borough of Croydon — 2023
- Case reference
- 2307425/2020
- Decision date
- 6 October 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Heath
- Venue
- London South
- Panel members
- Ms A Boyce, Mr M Cann
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Botting
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal heard the claims at London South over several days in April and October 2023. The panel consisted of Employment Judge Heath, Ms A Boyce and Mr M Cann.
The judgment records that all claims before the tribunal were not well-founded and were dismissed. Those claims were unfair dismissal under section 98 Employment Rights Act 1996, automatically unfair dismissal under section 103A, detriment for having made protected disclosures, direct race discrimination, race-related harassment, victimisation, and a complaint under section 189 Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 relating to section 188 or section 188A.
The judgment does not set out detailed reasons or any monetary remedy. No award is recorded.
Claims and outcomes
7 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment states that the unfair dismissal claim under section 98 Employment Rights Act 1996 was not well-founded and was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | The judgment states that the automatically unfair dismissal claim under section 103A Employment Rights Act was not well-founded and was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | The judgment states that the claim for detriment for having made protected disclosures was not well-founded and was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Race discrimination | The judgment states that the direct race discrimination claim was not well-founded and was dismissed. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Harassment | The judgment states that the race-related harassment claim was not well-founded and was dismissed. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Victimisation | The judgment states that the victimisation claim was not well-founded and was dismissed, but the extracted judgment does not specify the protected characteristic for this claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Trade union |
Legal tests applied
5 references- section 98 Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 103A Employment Rights Act
- section 189 Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
- section 188 Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
- section 188A Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
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.