Case 2500100/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr C Waters v Unified Care Services Ltd — 2024
- Case reference
- 2500100/2024
- Decision date
- 20 September 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Jeram Representation
- Venue
- Newcastle
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr C Waters
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr C Waters brought a complaint of automatic unfair dismissal under s.103A Employment Rights Act 1996 and a complaint of detriment under s.47B Employment Rights Act 1996 against Unified Care Services Ltd. The dismissal complaint was withdrawn by the claimant and was therefore dismissed on that basis. The detriment complaint was found not well founded and was dismissed.
The case was heard at Newcastle Employment Tribunal on 18 to 20 September 2024 before Employment Judge Jeram. The written record states that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested in accordance with the usual tribunal process.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment records a complaint of automatic unfair dismissal pursuant to s.103A Employment Rights Act 1996, dismissed upon withdrawal by the claimant. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | The judgment records a complaint of detriment pursuant to s.47B Employment Rights Act 1996, which was found not well founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.