Case 2408725/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Ms C Watson v Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency (DVSA) — 2024
- Case reference
- 2408725/2022
- Decision date
- 28 August 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Cookson
- Venue
- Manchester
- Panel members
- Ms C Bowman, Dr B Tirohl
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms C Watson
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal unanimously found that the claimant had not made a qualifying protected disclosure of information within the meaning of s43B of the Employment Rights Act 1996. On that basis, her complaint of unfair dismissal under s103A of the Employment Rights Act 1996 was not well-founded and was dismissed.
The Tribunal also dismissed the claimant's complaints of direct sex discrimination under s13 of the Equality Act 2010, finding that they were not well-founded. The written judgment records that reasons were given orally at the hearing and does not set out further factual findings or reasoning.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | The judgment records that the claimant did not make a qualifying protected disclosure of information under s43B Employment Rights Act 1996, so the complaint of unfair dismissal under s103A was not well-founded and was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Sex discrimination | The complaints of direct sex discrimination under s13 Equality Act 2010 were not well-founded and were dismissed. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- s43B Employment Rights Act 1996
- s103A Employment Rights Act 1996
- s13 Equality Act 2010
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.