Case 3300829/2024 · Employment Tribunal
In Person For the v Respondent — 2025
- Case reference
- 3300829/2024
- Decision date
- 5 December 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Venue
- Bury St Edmunds
- Panel members
- Mr B McSweeney, Mr C Grant
Parties
1 namedClaimant
In Person For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal heard the claims at Bury St Edmunds over six hearing days before Employment Judge K J Palmer, sitting with members Mr B McSweeney and Mr C Grant. The claimant appeared in person and the respondent was represented by counsel.
The unanimous judgment recorded that the claimant's whistleblowing detriment claims under section 47B of the Employment Rights Act 1996 failed and were dismissed. It also recorded that the claimant's race discrimination claims under section 13 of the Equality Act 2010 failed and were dismissed. The written judgment says reasons were given orally and that written reasons would only be provided if requested within the stated time limit.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | The judgment states that the claimant's whistleblowing detriment claims under section 47B of the Employment Rights Act 1996 failed and were dismissed. Written reasons were not included because reasons were given orally. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Race discrimination | The judgment states that the claimant's race discrimination claims under section 13 of the Equality Act 2010 failed and were dismissed. Written reasons were not included because reasons were given orally. | Dismissed | Race | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- section 47B of the Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 13 of the Equality Act 2010
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.