Case 2405890/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr B Wilkinson v Skills and Work Solutions Ltd t/a The Growth Company — 2020
- Case reference
- 2405890/2019
- Decision date
- 18 December 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Dunlop Representation
- Venue
- Manchester
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr B Wilkinson
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Mr B Wilkinson, brought two dismissal claims against Skills and Work Solutions Ltd t/a The Growth Company: an automatic unfair dismissal claim under s103A Employment Rights Act 1996, said to arise from protected disclosures, and an ordinary unfair dismissal claim under ss94 and 98 of the Act. The hearing took place at Manchester Employment Tribunal sitting at The Lowry on 30 November and 1, 2 and 3 December 2020 before Employment Judge Dunlop.
The tribunal dismissed both claims. The written record states that the automatic unfair dismissal claim was not well-founded and that the ordinary unfair dismissal claim was also not well-founded. No separate remedy figures are recorded in the written judgment.
The note to the judgment records that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested by either party within 14 days of the sending of the written record. The extracted text does not include the tribunal's detailed reasoning, so only the claim outcomes and the statutory bases can be recorded from the judgment text itself.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | Claim pleaded as automatic unfair dismissal by reason of having made protected disclosures under s103A Employment Rights Act 1996. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Ordinary unfair dismissal claim under ss94 and 98 Employment Rights Act 1996. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- s103A Employment Rights Act 1996
- ss94 and 98 Employment Rights Act 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.