Case 2602743/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Mr K Modhwadia v Danatrol Limited — 2019
- Case reference
- 2602743/2018
- Decision date
- 23 August 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ahmed
- Venue
- Leicester
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr K Modhwadia
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Ahmed, sitting alone at Leicester on 9 August 2019, recorded that Mr K Modhwadia had made protected disclosures to Danatrol Limited. On that basis, the tribunal held that he was entitled to proceed with his complaint of detriment under section 47B of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and his complaint of unfair dismissal under section 103A of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
The written record is a short judgment and does not contain findings on the underlying merits of either complaint beyond the protected disclosure point and the claimant's entitlement to pursue the claims. No monetary award was made in this judgment.
The decision note states that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days of the written record being sent to the parties.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | The tribunal recorded that the claimant had made protected disclosures to the respondent and was entitled to proceed with his complaint of detriment under section 47B ERA 1996. This judgment did not determine the merits of the detriment complaint itself. | Other | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal recorded that the claimant had made protected disclosures to the respondent and was entitled to proceed with his complaint of unfair dismissal under section 103A ERA 1996. This judgment did not determine the merits of the dismissal complaint itself. | Other | — | — |
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.