Case 3201677/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Cook v National Employment Savings Trust (NEST) Corporation — 2025
- Case reference
- 3201677/2023
- Decision date
- 7 May 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge B Elgot Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr J Cook
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal refused the claimant's application under Rule 35 Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2025 to add Mr Neville Howe and Mr Richard Lockwood as individual respondents, finding that joinder was not in the interests of justice. The Tribunal also refused the consequent application to amend the Particulars of Claim, except for agreed amendments to paragraph 29.
The Tribunal partly granted the claimant's application for specific disclosure. It ordered disclosure of documents in Boxes 1-5 headed "Whistleblowing Materials" and any created business case documents within Box 8 concerning proposed hiring of six senior staff, but declined to order witness statements or the disclosure sought in Box 6.
The Tribunal was not satisfied that disclosure of metadata or version history for a document named "Budget Summary" was necessary or proportionate, although the respondent agreed through counsel to look again for version history if it could be found.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment is a preliminary/private CVP judgment dealing with joinder, amendment, and disclosure applications. It does not determine the unfair dismissal claim on its merits. | Other | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | The judgment refers to whistleblowing materials and the respondent not relying on the defence in section 47B(1D) Employment Rights Act 1996, but does not determine any whistleblowing claim on its merits. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 35 Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2025
- section 47B(1D) 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.