Case 2417807/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Paul Newton v Weaver Vale Housing Trust — 2019
- Case reference
- 2417807/2018
- Decision date
- 24 December 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Shotter REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Paul Newton
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal, sitting at Liverpool on 2 to 5 December 2019 before Employment Judge Shotter, determined two dismissal claims brought by Mr Paul Newton against Weaver Vale Housing Trust. The ordinary unfair dismissal claim was dismissed because the tribunal found that he was not unfairly dismissed and that the claim was not well-founded.
The tribunal also dismissed the claim of automatic unfair dismissal under section 103A of the Employment Rights Act 1996. It found that the claimant was not automatically unfairly dismissed and that this claim was not well-founded. No remedy was recorded in the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held that the claimant was not unfairly dismissed and that the claim was not well-founded. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | The tribunal held that the claimant was not automatically unfairly dismissed under section 103A of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and that this claim was not well-founded. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- section 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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.