Case 3302768/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr N Brockley, counsel For the v Mr A Tinnion — 2023
- Case reference
- 3302768/2020
- Decision date
- 14 August 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Quill
- Venue
- Watford
- Panel members
- Mr D Sutton, Mr L Hoey
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr N Brockley, counsel For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal held that the claimant’s emails of 27 July 2019 and 10 August 2019 to CQC, Debra Payne and Claire Scott were protected disclosures. It found that the email to David Archer on 5 November 2019 was not a protected disclosure, although it was a protected act within section 27 of the Equality Act 2010. The claimant was found to have mixed anxiety and depressive disorder and OCD within section 6(1) and 6(3) Equality Act 2010.
All substantive complaints failed. The tribunal found that the claimant was not subjected to any detriment on the ground that he had made a protected disclosure, and that the reason for dismissal was not protected disclosure and was not that he had asserted statutory rights. It also found that there was no entitlement to notice of dismissal, no breach of contract, and that the implied term alleged in the contract did not exist.
On the disability claims, the tribunal found there was no failure to make reasonable adjustments, no disability discrimination within section 15 Equality Act 2010, and no direct disability discrimination. It also found there was no victimisation. The judgment concludes that all complaints fail and that there is no entitlement to remedy.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | The tribunal held that the emails of 27 July 2019 and 10 August 2019 to CQC, Debra Payne and Claire Scott were protected disclosures, but found no detriment suffered on the ground of protected disclosure. The 5 November 2019 email to David Archer was not a protected disclosure. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found that the reason for dismissal was not that the claimant had made a protected disclosure and not that he had asserted statutory rights. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal held that the claimant was not entitled to notice of dismissal, there was no breach of contract, and his contract did not include the implied term alleged. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The tribunal found that the claimant had mixed anxiety and depressive disorder and OCD within section 6(1) and 6(3) Equality Act 2010, but there was no failure to make reasonable adjustments, no section 15 disability discrimination, and no direct disability discrimination. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Victimisation | Although the 5 November 2019 email was held to be a protected act within section 27 Equality Act 2010, the tribunal found there was no victimisation. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- section 27 Equality Act 2010
- section 6(1) and 6(3) Equality Act 2010
- section 15 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.