Ms J May, solicitor For the v Mr D Alstin, Operations Director This has been a remote hearing to which the parties did not object via CVP. A full face-to-face hearing was not held because it was not practicable and all matters could be determined in a remote hearing. — Employment Tribunal 2020

Loading…

Claims and outcomes

3 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Whistleblowing	Claim for detriment due to protected disclosure under section 47B ERA 1996. At the conclusion of the evidence, after the tribunal indicated there was no evidential basis that the alleged detriments were caused by protected disclosures, the claimant withdrew this claim.	Withdrawn	—	—
Unfair dismissal	Claim for automatic constructive unfair dismissal under section 103A ERA 1996. It was withdrawn by the claimant at the same stage as the detriment claim after the tribunal found no evidence supporting the whistleblowing case.	Withdrawn	—	—
Constructive dismissal	Ordinary constructive unfair dismissal claim. The tribunal rejected the asserted repudiatory breach and held the claimant had not shown anticipatory breach or breach of the implied term of mutual trust and confidence.	Dismissed	—	—

Ms J May, solicitor For the v Mr D Alstin, Operations Director This has been a remote hearing to which the parties did not object via CVP. A full face-to-face hearing was not held because it was not practicable and all matters could be determined in a remote hearing. — Employment Tribunal 2020 | Tribunal Watch

Ms J May, solicitor For the v Mr D Alstin, Operations Director This has been a remote hearing to which the parties did not object via CVP. A full face-to-face hearing was not held because it was not practicable and all matters could be determined in a remote hearing. — 2020

Parties

Claimant

Respondent

Key findings

Claims and outcomes

Legal tests applied

Official outcome judgment PDF

How we got this data