Case 2500822/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Lawson v Churchill Community College Public Preliminary Hearing — 2023
- Case reference
- 2500822/2023
- Decision date
- 30 October 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Johnson REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Lawson
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt this public preliminary hearing, the tribunal considered the claimant's claim that he had been subjected to detriment on the ground of making a protected disclosure. Employment Judge Johnson recorded that the hearing took place on 26 October 2023 at Newcastle CFCTC, with Mr D Robinson-Young of Counsel appearing for the claimant and Mr T Shears, Solicitor, for the respondent.
The tribunal held that the claim was not presented within the applicable time limit. It further found that it was reasonably practicable for the claim to have been presented in time. On that basis, the claim of detriment on the ground of making a protected disclosure was dismissed.
The written record states that reasons were given orally at the hearing, and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days of the written record. No monetary remedy was awarded or recorded in the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | The claim of detriment on the ground of making a protected disclosure was found not to have been presented within the applicable time limit, and the tribunal found it was reasonably practicable to do so. | 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.