Case 2401936/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Gafoor v Edwin C Farrall (Transport) Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 2401936/2020
- Decision date
- 15 July 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Grundy
- Venue
- Manchester
- Panel members
- Ms F Crane, Ms C Doyle
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Gafoor
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that Mr M Gafoor was unfairly dismissed under s103A ERA 1996 for making protected disclosures. It declared that the principal reason for his dismissal was that he had made protected disclosures in two emails sent to the respondent on 21 November 2019 and 22 November 2019. The tribunal also declared that the information in both emails amounted to protected disclosures, and recorded that the respondent accepted in any event that the 22 November 2019 email was a protected disclosure.
The tribunal further found that the claimant succeeded in his detriment complaint to the extent that he was isolated at work by the respondent prior to dismissal as a result of making the protected disclosures. The judgment records liability only. It states that the issue of compensation would be dealt with at a later hearing on 9 July 2021.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | The tribunal held that the claimant was unfairly dismissed under s103A ERA 1996 for making protected disclosures. | Upheld | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | The tribunal declared that the claimant was subjected to a detriment, namely that he was isolated at work before dismissal, as a result of making protected disclosures. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- s103A ERA 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.