Case 2406215/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr P Emmonds v Key Digital Ltd — 2021
- Case reference
- 2406215/2020
- Decision date
- 18 May 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Phil Allen
- Venue
- Manchester
- Panel members
- Mr J Flynn, Mr J Murdie
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr P Emmonds
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal, sitting in Manchester before Employment Judge Phil Allen with lay members Mr J Flynn and Mr J Murdie, heard the case from 10 to 14 May 2021 and gave a unanimous judgment. It found that Mr Emmonds did not make the protected disclosures relied upon, and that the principal reason for his dismissal was not that he had made one or more protected disclosures. His automatic unfair dismissal claim under section 103A of the Employment Rights Act 1996 therefore failed.
The tribunal also rejected the unlawful deduction from wages claim under section 13 ERA 1996, finding that Key Digital Ltd did not make any unlawful deductions. It further found that the respondent did not breach the contract of employment because it paid the claimant the amount due in respect of notice, so the wrongful dismissal/breach of contract claim did not succeed.
The claimant's remaining claims for direct discrimination because of disability and age, indirect disability discrimination, breach of the duty to make reasonable adjustments, and harassment related to disability or age were dismissed on withdrawal by the claimant. No monetary award was made.
Claims and outcomes
9 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Direct discrimination because of disability was dismissed on withdrawal by the claimant. | Withdrawn | Disability | — |
| Whistleblowing | Automatic unfair dismissal under section 103A ERA 1996 failed because the tribunal found the claimant did not make the protected disclosures relied upon and that the principal reason for dismissal was not protected disclosures. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal found the respondent made no unlawful deductions from wages under section 13 ERA 1996. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found there was no breach of contract because the claimant was paid the notice to which he was entitled. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Age discrimination | Direct discrimination because of age was dismissed on withdrawal by the claimant. | Withdrawn | Age | — |
| Disability discrimination | Indirect disability discrimination was dismissed on withdrawal by the claimant. | Withdrawn | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination |
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.