Case 2501744/2021 · Employment Tribunal

Mr W Blake v Hamsterley and District Social Club Limited — 2022

Case reference: 2501744/2021
Decision date: 22 November 2022
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Morris Members
Venue: Newcastle Hearing Centre
Panel members: Miss BG Kirby, Mr D Morgan

Indexed: 22 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Mr W Blake

Respondent

Hamsterley and District Social Club Limited

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The Employment Tribunal, sitting with Employment Judge Morris and members Miss BG Kirby and Mr D Morgan, unanimously held that the respondent subjected Mr W Blake to a detriment on the ground that he had made protected disclosures, contrary to section 47B of the Employment Rights Act 1996. It awarded compensation of £1,252.55 under section 49 for that contravention.

The tribunal also upheld the claimant's complaint that his dismissal was unfair because the reason, or principal reason, for dismissal was that he had made a protected disclosure, under section 103A of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The judgment states that no separate compensation was awarded for the unfair dismissal claim because any such compensation was already addressed in the £1,252.55 award.

In addition, the tribunal found that, when the proceedings began, the respondent had been in breach of section 1(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 by failing to provide a written statement of initial employment particulars. Under section 38(2) of the Employment Act 2002 it awarded the minimum of two weeks' pay, assessed at £850, and then increased by 10% under section 207A of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, producing £935. The total sum ordered to be paid was £2,187.55. The written record notes that the figures were recalculated from those announced orally and are the accurate awards.

Claims and outcomes

3 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Whistleblowing	The tribunal found a detriment contrary to section 47B of the Employment Rights Act 1996 because the claimant had made protected disclosures. Compensation of £1,252.55 was awarded under section 49.	Upheld	—	£1,253
Unfair dismissal	The tribunal found the dismissal was unfair because the reason, or principal reason, for dismissal was that the claimant made a protected disclosure under section 103A of the Employment Rights Act 1996. No separate compensation was awarded for this claim because it was already covered by the £1,252.55 award above.	Upheld	—	—
Other	The tribunal recorded that, when proceedings began, the respondent was in breach of section 1(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 by failing to give a written statement of initial employment particulars. Under section 38(2) of the Employment Act 2002 it awarded two weeks' pay of £850, uplifted by 10% (£85) under section 207A of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, making £935.	Upheld	—	£935

Remedy

Monetary award

Total award: £2,188; across all upheld claims
Compensatory award: £1,253; compensatory remedy recorded

Legal tests applied

6 references

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.