Case 3202971/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr David Taylor-Webb v Dennis Eagle Ltd — 2021
- Case reference
- 3202971/2019
- Decision date
- 1 June 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge G Tobin Members
- Venue
- East London Hearing Centre
- Panel members
- Ms A Berry, Mrs S Legg
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr David Taylor-Webb
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Employment Tribunal held that Mr David Taylor-Webb was constructively unfairly dismissed pursuant to section 95(1)(c) of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The judgment records that this was the tribunal's conclusion on the unfair dismissal issue, but it does not set out the underlying factual reasoning in the extracted text provided here.
The tribunal also rejected the whistleblowing dismissal claim. It found that Mr Taylor-Webb was not constructively dismissed for making a protected disclosure within section 103A Employment Rights Act 1996. No monetary remedy, separate award, or other compensation figure is stated in the extracted judgment text.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive dismissal | The tribunal held that the claimant was constructively unfairly dismissed pursuant to section 95(1)(c) Employment Rights Act 1996. | Upheld | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | The tribunal held that the claimant was not constructively dismissed for making a protected disclosure in breach of section 103A Employment Rights Act 1996. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- s.95(1)(c) Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.103A 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.