Case 2500984/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr DJ Stockdale v Cleveland Bridge UK Limited (in administration) — 2020
- Case reference
- 2500984/2020
- Decision date
- 21 July 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Sweeney Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr DJ Stockdale
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant applied for interim relief after bringing claims of automatic unfair dismissal. He contended that the reason or principal reason for his summary dismissal was either that he had performed functions as a health and safety representative, or that he had made a protected disclosure in an email to the HSE about asbestos-related concerns.
The tribunal applied the interim relief threshold and considered whether the claimant had shown a pretty good chance of succeeding at the final hearing. It assessed the untested documentary and witness material, including the dismissal decision, the HSE email, the investigation material, and the parties' submissions about whether the reasons given for dismissal were separable from the alleged disclosure and health and safety representative functions.
The tribunal was not able to conclude that there was a pretty good chance that a final tribunal would find the dismissal was for either inadmissible reason. It considered that the email was capable of being read as implying that management had misled workers or covered matters up, and that the respondent's stated reasons for dismissal were, on the interim assessment, separable from the disclosure and from the claimant's performance of health and safety representative functions. The application for interim relief was therefore dismissed, with no final findings of fact made on the substantive claims.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Interim relief application dismissed. This concerned the claimant's contention that the reason or principal reason for dismissal was that he performed functions as a health and safety representative under section 100(1)(b) ERA; the tribunal made no final findings on the substantive complaint. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | Interim relief application dismissed. This concerned the claimant's contention that the reason or principal reason for dismissal was that he made a protected disclosure under section 103A ERA; the tribunal made no final findings on the substantive complaint. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
18 references- section 129 ERA 1996
- Taplin v Shippam pretty good chance test
- Ministry of Justice v Sarfraz
- London City Airport v Chacko
- Hancock v Ter-Berg
- section 100 ERA 1996
- section 103A ERA 1996
- section 43B ERA 1996
- section 43C(1)(b)(ii) ERA 1996
- section 43F ERA 1996
- s.98(4) ERA 1996
- Abernethy v Mott, Hay and Anderson
- Croydon Health Services NHS Trust v Beatt
- Cavendish Munro Professional Risks Management Ltd v Geduld
- Kilraine v London Borough of Wandsworth
- Korashi v Abertawe Bro Morgannwg University Local Health Board
- Shinwari v Vue Entertainment Ltd
- Shillito v Van Leer UK Ltd
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.