Case 3304968/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Stuart Graham v Covea Insurance Services Limited and 3 others — 2025
- Case reference
- 3304968/2023
- Decision date
- 14 November 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Read
- Venue
- Reading and VTC
- Panel members
- Ms F Tankard, Ms C Baggs
Parties
5 namedClaimant
Stuart Graham
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal unanimously dismissed the complaint of being subjected to detriment for making a protected disclosure, finding that it was not well-founded. It also dismissed the complaint of automatic unfair dismissal under s103A of the Employment Rights Act 1996 as not well-founded.
The Tribunal further dismissed the complaint of constructive unfair dismissal as not well-founded. The written judgment records that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would only be provided if requested.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | Complaint of being subjected to detriment for making a protected disclosure was dismissed. The judgment records the outcome only; reasons were given orally and no written reasons are included. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | Complaint of automatic unfair dismissal under s103A of the Employment Rights Act 1996 was dismissed. The judgment records the outcome only; reasons were given orally and no written reasons are included. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Constructive dismissal | Complaint of constructive unfair dismissal was dismissed. The judgment records the outcome only; reasons were given orally and no written reasons are included. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- s103A of the Employment Rights Act 1996
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.