Case 3300605/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Ali v Paradox Media Group Limited (in liquidation) and 2 others — 2024
- Case reference
- 3300605/2023
- Decision date
- 28 August 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge M Warren Members
- Venue
- Norwich
- Panel members
- Mr B McSweeney, Ms V Gibbs
Parties
4 namedClaimant
Mr A Ali
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal heard the case at Norwich by CVP on 3 to 5 July 2024 before Employment Judge M Warren, sitting with members Mr B McSweeney and Ms V Gibbs. The claimant, Mr A Ali, appeared in person and the respondents were represented by counsel. The judgment records that the claimant brought claims that he had been subjected to detriment and unfairly dismissed because he had made protected disclosures.
The tribunal held that both claims failed. Its judgment states that the claims that the claimant was subjected to detriment and unfairly dismissed because he had made protected disclosures were dismissed. The extracted text does not contain written reasons, only the oral judgment record and the final outcome.
No monetary award is recorded in the judgment extract. The case was therefore disposed of by dismissal of the whistleblowing detriment claim and the unfair dismissal claim, with no remedy awarded.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | Claim that the claimant was subjected to detriment because he had made protected disclosures. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Claim that the claimant was unfairly dismissed because he had made protected disclosures. | 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.