Case 2415130/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Lee Shuttleworth v Williams Motor Co (Holdings) Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 2415130/2021
- Decision date
- 22 July 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Allen
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Lee Shuttleworth
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr Lee Shuttleworth said he had five claims, but only the unfair dismissal claim brought by way of constructive dismissal proceeded at the hearing. Tribunal Judge Holt recorded that the claim was brought under Part X of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and dismissed it.
The judgment also recorded that the tribunal did not have jurisdiction to decide claims described as defamation of character and mental stress and anxiety. It further recorded that the whistleblowing claim had previously been dismissed by Employment Judge Allen due to lack of evidence, and that the discrimination/being treated less favourably claim had also previously been dismissed by Employment Judge Allen due to lack of evidence.
No monetary award was made.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Claim proceeded as unfair dismissal by way of constructive dismissal under Part X of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | Claim described as defamation of character; the tribunal said it did not have jurisdiction to decide it. | Other | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | Previously dismissed by Employment Judge Allen due to lack of evidence. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | Claim described as discrimination/being treated less favourably; previously dismissed by Employment Judge Allen due to lack of evidence. The judgment does not identify a protected characteristic. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | Claim described as mental stress and anxiety; the tribunal said it did not have jurisdiction to decide it. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Part X of the Employment Rights Act 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.
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.