Case 2414083/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Marshall v Motor Outlet Limited Steve Padden Stuart Deas — 2021
- Case reference
- 2414083/2019
- Decision date
- 14 December 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Aspinall Representation
- Venue
- Liverpool
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr J Marshall
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the Liverpool hearing before Employment Judge Aspinall on 1, 2 and 3 December 2021, the tribunal held that Mr J Marshall's complaint of automatically unfair dismissal for having asserted the statutory right not to suffer an unauthorised deduction was well founded and succeeded. It also held that his complaint of failure to provide an itemised pay statement was well founded and succeeded.
The tribunal rejected the claimant's public interest disclosure complaints. The complaint of public interest disclosure detriment, including any complaint that dismissal was a detriment, was not well founded and failed, and the complaint of public interest disclosure automatic unfair dismissal also failed. The complaint that he had been denied the right to be accompanied at a disciplinary hearing was likewise not well founded and failed.
The tribunal rejected the argument that the ACAS Code applied to the case. The written record states that the matter would be listed for a remedy hearing, so no remedy figure was determined in this decision.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Automatic unfair dismissal for having asserted the statutory right not to suffer an unauthorised deduction. | Upheld | — | — |
| Other | Failure to provide an itemised pay statement. | Upheld | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | Public interest disclosure detriment claim, including dismissal as detriment. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | Public interest disclosure automatic unfair dismissal claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Trade union | Complaint of being denied the right to be accompanied at a disciplinary hearing. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.