Case 2400650/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr R Simpson v Bestway Panacea Holdings Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 2400650/2021
- Decision date
- 21 December 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge M Butler
- Venue
- Manchester
- Panel members
- Ms M Dowling, Mr A Gill
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr R Simpson
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the liability stage heard on 11 to 15 December 2023, the tribunal unanimously dismissed the victimisation claims, the claim for detriment on the grounds of having made a protected disclosure, and the claim that the claimant was unfairly dismissed because he had made a protected disclosure. Those claims therefore failed in full on the face of the written judgment, which records no liability findings in their favour.
By majority, however, the tribunal found that Mr R Simpson had been unfairly dismissed by Bestway Panacea Holdings Limited. The majority also found 50% contributory fault on the claimant's part. The minority member disagreed on unfair dismissal and stated that, had unfair dismissal been found, contributory fault would have been assessed at 80%.
The tribunal also found that Mr Simpson had been wrongfully dismissed. Remedy was not determined in the liability judgment: the claimant said he was seeking reinstatement or re-engagement, and the tribunal directed that a remedy hearing be listed to decide whether such an order should be made and, if not, the compensation payable.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Victimisation | The tribunal unanimously dismissed the victimisation claims. The extract does not identify the protected characteristic or protected act relied on. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | Claim for detriment on the grounds of having made a protected disclosure; dismissed unanimously. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | Claim that the claimant was unfairly dismissed for making a protected disclosure; dismissed unanimously. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | By majority, the tribunal found that the claimant had been unfairly dismissed. The majority also found 50% contributory fault on the claimant's part; the minority would not have found unfair dismissal and would have assessed contributory fault at 80% if unfair dismissal had been made out. | Upheld | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | The tribunal also found that the claimant was wrongfully dismissed. | Upheld | — | — |
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.