Case 2404993/2022 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Respondent — 2024
- Case reference
- 2404993/2022
- Decision date
- 24 May 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Kenward
- Venue
- Manchester
- Panel members
- Mrs A Ashworth, Mr I Taylor
Parties
1 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal recorded two claims concerning alleged detriment and dismissal by reason of public interest disclosures. The claimant appeared in person and the respondent was represented by counsel at a hearing in Manchester before Employment Judge Kenward, Mrs A Ashworth and Mr I Taylor.
The complaints under Employment Rights Act 1996 sections 47B and 103A were found not well-founded and dismissed. The judgment states that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would only be provided if requested.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | The judgment describes complaints under Employment Rights Act 1996 section 47B as victimisation by being subjected to detriment on the ground of making public interest disclosures. Written reasons were not provided in the text. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | The judgment describes a complaint under Employment Rights Act 1996 section 103A as being unfairly dismissed by reason of making public interest disclosures. Written reasons were not provided in the text. | 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.