Case 2410054/2019 · Employment Tribunal

Mr R Jordan v Delta Merseyside Ltd — 2019

Case reference: 2410054/2019
Decision date: 11 December 2019
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Horne Representatives
Venue: Liverpool

Indexed: 23 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Mr R Jordan

Respondent

Delta Merseyside Ltd

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

This was a preliminary hearing before Employment Judge Horne in Liverpool on 22 November 2019. The tribunal refused the claimant's application to amend his claim so as to introduce allegations that he made protected disclosures on 23 November 2018 and 1 February 2019.

The refused amendment also covered allegations of detriments said to consist of a failure to investigate an alleged assault, treating a message as a resignation, and being physically threatened. The judgment records that another aspect of the amendment application was allowed and dealt with in a separate case management order sent to the parties.

The judgment is procedural only and does not contain findings on the merits of any whistleblowing complaint or any remedy award. Reasons were given orally at the hearing, and the written order was sent on 11 December 2019.

Claims and outcomes

1 finding recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Whistleblowing	At a preliminary hearing on 22 November 2019, the tribunal refused the claimant's application to amend his claim to add allegations that he made protected disclosures on 23 November 2018 and 1 February 2019 and suffered related detriments. The judgment does not determine the merits of any whistleblowing claim.	Other	—	—

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.