Case 2401910/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Mr P Watson v Hilary Meredith Solicitors Limited and 1 other — 2019
- Case reference
- 2401910/2018
- Decision date
- 21 February 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Slater
- Panel members
- Mrs C Linney, Mr A J Gill
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mr P Watson
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal heard claims by Mr P Watson for detriments on the ground of making protected disclosures and for unfair dismissal. The complaints of detriments other than the dismissal complaint were dismissed on withdrawal by the claimant.
The tribunal held that the complaint against the second respondent that Mr Watson had been subjected to the detriment of dismissal on the ground of making protected disclosures was not well founded. It also held that the unfair dismissal complaint against the first respondent, Hilary Meredith Solicitors Limited, was not well founded. The judgment records that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | Complaint that the claimant was subjected to detriments on the ground of making protected disclosures, other than the complaint relating to dismissal, was dismissed on withdrawal by the claimant. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | Complaint against the second respondent that the claimant was subjected to the detriment of dismissal on the ground of making protected disclosures was found not well founded. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Complaint of unfair dismissal against the first respondent was found not well founded. | 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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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.