Case 2500918/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Dawson v Roseberry Grange Community Golf Club Limited — 2020
- Case reference
- 2500918/2020
- Decision date
- 19 December 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Morris
- Venue
- Newcastle Hearing Centre
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Dawson
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Morris, sitting alone at Newcastle Hearing Centre, dismissed the claimant’s claim that his dismissal was automatically unfair under section 103A of the Employment Rights Act 1996 because of a protected disclosure. The judgment records that this claim was not well-founded.
The tribunal upheld the claimant’s contract claim that the respondent breached the contract of employment by failing to give the notice of termination to which he was entitled. It ordered the respondent to pay compensation based on reasonable notice, assessed at two weeks’ pay totalling £587.08.
Because the award was calculated by reference to net pay, the tribunal directed that any liability to income tax and national insurance contributions would rest with the respondent alone.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | Claim pleaded as automatic unfair dismissal under section 103A ERA 1996 on the basis of protected disclosure; dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found the respondent breached the contract of employment by failing to give the claimant the notice of termination to which he was entitled. | Upheld | — | £587 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £587
- across all upheld claims
- Compensatory award
- £587
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
1 reference- section 103A 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.