Case 2407999/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr R Weston v LTE Group — 2023
- Case reference
- 2407999/2021
- Decision date
- 6 June 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Venue
- Manchester
- Panel members
- Ms A Gilchrist, Mr J Murdie
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr R Weston
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal unanimously held that the claimant's claim that he had been automatically unfairly dismissed for making protected disclosures was not well-founded and failed.
The claimant withdrew his claims for notice pay, holiday pay and age discrimination on the first day of the hearing. The tribunal recorded those claims as dismissed following withdrawal.
The judgment states that reasons were given orally at the hearing. No written reasons are included in the extracted text.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | The tribunal held that the claimant's claim of automatic unfair dismissal for making protected disclosures under section 103A Employment Rights Act 1996 was not well-founded and failed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The notice pay claim was withdrawn by the claimant on the first day of the hearing and then dismissed by the tribunal following withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The holiday pay claim was withdrawn by the claimant on the first day of the hearing and then dismissed by the tribunal following withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Age discrimination | The age discrimination claim was withdrawn by the claimant on the first day of the hearing and then dismissed by the tribunal following withdrawal. | Withdrawn | Age | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- section 103A 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.