Case 2409323/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v LTE Group and others — 2024
- Case reference
- 2409323/2023
- Decision date
- 28 June 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Cookson REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a preliminary hearing in public on 14 June 2024, Employment Judge Cookson considered the claimant's claims against LTE Group and the three individual respondents. The claimant was represented in person and the respondents by a solicitor. The only substantive issue recorded in the written judgment was whether the claimant had made a protected disclosure within the meaning of section 43A of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
The tribunal found that the claimant did not make a protected disclosure as defined by section 43A ERA 1996. On that basis, the whistleblowing claims were dismissed. The judgment notes that oral reasons were given at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested in accordance with the tribunal's notice.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | Preliminary hearing in public. The tribunal found the claimant did not make a protected disclosure as defined by section 43A ERA 1996. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- section 43A ERA 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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 4 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.