Case 2601955/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr R Oakden v Park Hall Financial Services Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 2601955/2023
- Decision date
- 25 July 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Victoria Butler
- Venue
- Nottingham Heard
- Panel members
- Ms J Dean, Ms J Morrish
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr R Oakden
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal unanimously decided that Mr R Oakden's claims of constructive unfair dismissal, automatically unfair dismissal, whistleblowing detriment and wrongful dismissal failed and were dismissed.
The judgment also records that the respondent's application for costs failed and was dismissed. Reasons were given orally at the hearing, and the written record states that written reasons would not be provided unless requested.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive dismissal | The judgment records that the claim of constructive unfair dismissal failed and was dismissed. Written reasons were not provided in the text. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment records that the claim of automatically unfair dismissal failed and was dismissed. Written reasons were not provided in the text. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | The judgment records that the whistleblowing detriment claim failed and was dismissed. Written reasons were not provided in the text. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | The judgment records that the wrongful dismissal claim failed and was dismissed. Written reasons were not provided in the text. | 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.