Case 2501069/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Ian Curley v Tyne Blinds Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 2501069/2020
- Decision date
- 3 June 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Langridge
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Ian Curley
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Langridge, sitting alone at Newcastle upon Tyne on 24 and 25 May 2021, dismissed the claimant's unfair dismissal claim. The judgment says the claim was brought by reason of raising health and safety concerns under section 100 Employment Rights Act 1996 and that it was not well-founded.
The judgment also records that all remaining claims were resolved during the hearing without the need for any order or judgment, and were therefore dismissed. The extracted text does not identify those remaining heads individually. No monetary award or other remedy is recorded in the judgment extract.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held that the claimant's unfair dismissal claim, brought by reason of raising health and safety concerns under s.100 Employment Rights Act 1996, was not well-founded and was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | The judgment states that all remaining claims were resolved during the hearing without the need for any order or judgment and were therefore dismissed; the extracted text does not set out the individual remaining heads, but the case listing indicates a public interest disclosure claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The judgment states that all remaining claims were resolved during the hearing without the need for any order or judgment and were therefore dismissed; the extracted text does not set out the individual remaining heads. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment states that all remaining claims were resolved during the hearing without the need for any order or judgment and were therefore dismissed; the extracted text does not set out the individual remaining heads. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Working time regulations | The judgment states that all remaining claims were resolved during the hearing without the need for any order or judgment and were therefore dismissed; the extracted text does not set out the individual remaining heads. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- s.100 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.