Case 2418048/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Lafferty v Phone Masters Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 2418048/2020
- Decision date
- 24 June 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ganner
- Venue
- Liverpool
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr J Lafferty
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal heard the case in Liverpool on 9 and 10 May 2022 before Employment Judge Ganner sitting alone. The claimant, Mr J Lafferty, was represented by his grandfather as lay representative and the respondent by counsel, Mr T Kenward. The judgment records two automatic unfair dismissal claims: one under section 104 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 based on assertion of a statutory right, and one under section 100(1)(c)(i) based on health and safety.
Claims and outcomes
2 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 | Automatic unfair dismissal claim under section 104 Employment Rights Act 1996 (assertion of statutory right). The judgment states it was dismissed upon withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Automatic unfair dismissal claim under section 100(1)(c)(i) Employment Rights Act 1996 (health and safety). The tribunal found it was not well-founded and dismissed it. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- section 104 Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 100(1)(c)(i) 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.