Case 2408057/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr CS Cheng v Garic Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 2408057/2021
- Decision date
- 17 August 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Eeley
- Venue
- Manchester
- Panel members
- Ms A Jackson, Mr I Taylor
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr CS Cheng
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal, sitting with Employment Judge Eeley and lay members Ms A Jackson and Mr I Taylor, heard the case in Manchester over multiple hearing dates in May, June and August 2023. It dismissed the claimant's public interest disclosure detriment claim under section 47B Employment Rights Act 1996, describing it as not well founded.
It also dismissed the claimant's automatically unfair dismissal claim under section 103A Employment Rights Act 1996, again finding that the claim was not well founded. In addition, the tribunal dismissed the claimant's direct discrimination claim under sections 10 and 13 Equality Act 2010, which was pleaded as discrimination because of philosophical belief.
The written record states that reasons for the judgment were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested. No monetary award is recorded in the judgment, and no remedy was ordered in the written decision.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | Public interest disclosure detriment claim under section 47B ERA 1996; dismissed as not well founded. Written reasons were not provided in the judgment record because reasons were given orally at the hearing. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Automatically unfair dismissal claim under section 103A ERA 1996 based on protected disclosures; dismissed as not well founded. Written reasons were not provided in the judgment record because reasons were given orally at the hearing. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Religion or belief discrimination | Direct discrimination claim because of philosophical belief under sections 10 and 13 Equality Act 2010; dismissed as not well founded. Written reasons were not provided in the judgment record because reasons were given orally at the hearing. | Dismissed | Religion or belief | — |
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.