Case 2416589/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D Goldfarb v Farringtons Limited — 2019
- Case reference
- 2416589/2018
- Decision date
- 20 March 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Howard REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D Goldfarb
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe judgment records that Mr D Goldfarb brought a claim against Farringtons Limited for automatically unfair dismissal because he had made a public interest disclosure under section 103A Employment Rights Act 1996. The case was heard before Employment Judge Howard in Manchester on 13 March 2019, with the claimant represented by his father and the respondent represented by a solicitor.
The tribunal did not determine the merits of the whistleblowing dismissal claim. Instead, the judgment states that the claim was dismissed upon withdrawal. No findings on liability, no legal reasoning on the substance of the disclosure complaint, and no compensatory or other monetary award are recorded in the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | The judgment states that the claimant's claim of automatically unfair dismissal pursuant to making a public interest disclosure under section 103A Employment Rights Act 1996 was dismissed upon withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- s.103A 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.