Case 3301619/2023 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Mr Betts, Director — 2023
- Case reference
- 3301619/2023
- Decision date
- 5 October 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Postle Appearances
- Venue
- Norwich
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard at Norwich on 21 and 22 August 2023 before Employment Judge Postle. The claimant, Mr Darren Burton, appeared in person and the respondent was represented by Mr Betts, Director.
The written judgment records that the claimant was not an employee of Elite Academy of Security Training Limited. On that basis, the tribunal rejected the constructive dismissal claim. It also stated that, even if the claimant had been an employee, the constructive dismissal claim would not have been well founded.
The tribunal further found that the claimant’s claim that he was forced to resign as a result of a whistleblowing disclosure was not well founded. No monetary remedy was awarded in the written record provided.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive dismissal | The tribunal held that the claimant was not an employee of the respondent. It added that, even if he had been an employee, the constructive dismissal claim was not well founded. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | The tribunal found that the claimant’s claim that he was forced to resign as a result of a whistleblowing disclosure was not well founded. | 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.