Case 2500222/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Ms D Forth v Unitel Direct Ltd — 2021
- Case reference
- 2500222/2020
- Decision date
- 8 September 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Sweeney Lynn
- Venue
- Remotely
- Panel members
- Lynn Jackson, Russell Greig
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms D Forth
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMs D Forth brought two complaints against Unitel Direct Ltd. The tribunal, sitting remotely, considered a detriment complaint under section 47B Employment Rights Act 1996 and an unfair dismissal complaint under sections 111 and 103A Employment Rights Act 1996, the dismissal complaint being advanced on the basis that she had made a protected disclosure.
The written record states that both complaints were not well founded. The section 47B detriment complaint was dismissed, and the unfair dismissal complaint was also dismissed. The decision notes that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested.
No monetary remedy was awarded because both claims were dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | Complaint under section 47B Employment Rights Act 1996 that the Claimant was subjected to a detriment in contravention of section 47B was found not well founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Complaint under sections 111 and 103A Employment Rights Act 1996 of unfair dismissal by reason of protected disclosure 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.