Case 2500747/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr P Palmer First v Gap Organics Limited Second Respondent: Gap Group North East Limited RECORD OF A PRELIMINARY HEARING — 2024
- Case reference
- 2500747/2022
- Decision date
- 3 October 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Aspden Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr P Palmer First
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a preliminary hearing in Newcastle heard by video on 27 September 2024, Employment Judge Aspden considered strike-out issues in Mr P Palmer's claims against Gap Organics Limited and Gap Group North East Limited. The order dated 3 October 2024 held that, insofar as paragraph 39 of the grounds of claim alleged protected disclosures to persons other than Mr Moody, that part of the claim had no reasonable prospect of success and was struck out.
The tribunal also struck out any complaints under section 47B ERA 1996 based on alleged disclosures to 'other recipients', and any complaint that the dismissal was automatically unfair under section 103A ERA 1996 because the reason for dismissal was those disclosures. It did not strike out the remainder of the whistleblowing detriment and automatic unfair dismissal complaints, or the ordinary unfair dismissal complaint under section 98 ERA 1996. The order records that the claimant had not made a claim for notice pay and contains no monetary award.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | At paragraph 39, the allegation that the claimant made protected disclosures to persons other than Mr Moody was struck out for no reasonable prospect of success; the whistleblowing detriment complaint survived only insofar as it was not based on those allegations. | Other | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | The complaint that the dismissal was automatically unfair under section 103A ERA 1996 survived only to the extent it was not based on alleged protected disclosures to 'other recipients'; that specific basis was struck out. | Other | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The complaint of ordinary unfair dismissal under section 98 ERA 1996 was not struck out and was allowed to proceed. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
5 references- s.43A ERA 1996
- s.47B ERA 1996
- s.103A ERA 1996
- s.98 ERA 1996
- no reasonable prospect of success
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.