Case 2415231/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Tallon v Mitchells and Butlers Retail Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 2415231/2021
- Decision date
- 10 July 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Horne With
- Venue
- Liverpool
- Panel members
- Mrs A Ramsden, Mr J Murdie
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Tallon
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal recorded that Mr M Tallon had made one protected disclosure in 2016, but found that none of the other alleged disclosures qualified for protection. It further found that Mitchells & Butlers Retail Ltd did not subject him to any of the alleged detriments on the ground that he had made that protected disclosure.
The tribunal dismissed the section 103A unfair dismissal complaint, holding that Mr Tallon was not unfairly dismissed within the meaning of section 103A of the Employment Rights Act 1996. It also dismissed the ordinary unfair dismissal claim, finding that he was not otherwise unfairly dismissed.
The judgment also dealt with a proposed unauthorised deduction from wages complaint. The tribunal held that it could not consider that complaint because it required an amendment to the claim form, and permission to amend was refused.
No remedy was awarded. The judgment states that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested in writing within 14 days after the judgment was sent to the parties.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | The tribunal found that the claimant made one protected disclosure in 2016, but none of the alleged detriments were on the ground of that disclosure, and the claimant was not unfairly dismissed within the meaning of section 103A of the Employment Rights Act 1996. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held that the claimant was not otherwise unfairly dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal said it could not consider the proposed complaint of unauthorised deduction from wages because it would require an amendment to the claim form, and permission to amend was refused. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- section 103A 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.