Case 3305181/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Amar Khan v Novai Limited and and 1 other — 2024
- Case reference
- 3305181/2022
- Decision date
- 15 April 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Gumbiti-Zimuto Members
- Venue
- Reading
- Panel members
- Mrs M Thorne, Mr F Wright
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mr Amar Khan
Respondents
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant brought complaints of unfair dismissal, automatically unfair dismissal because of protected disclosure, and detriment because of protected disclosure. The tribunal found that his employment with Novai Limited began on 12 February 2020 and ended on 31 January 2022, and that there had been no TUPE transfer from Illustratum to the respondent. It therefore concluded that he did not have two years' continuous employment for an ordinary unfair dismissal claim.
The tribunal considered the alleged protected disclosures identified by the claimant, including emails in January 2022 about strategy, data and the respondent's chair. It found that none contained a qualifying disclosure within section 43B(1) ERA, and therefore there was no protected disclosure.
Because there was no protected disclosure, the tribunal dismissed the automatic unfair dismissal and detriment complaints. It also stated that, had there been a protected disclosure, it would have found that it was not the reason for dismissal because the decision to dismiss had been made before the alleged January 2022 disclosures.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Ordinary unfair dismissal was dismissed because the tribunal found the claimant did not have two years' continuous employment and therefore did not have the right to bring the claim under section 108 ERA. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | Automatically unfair dismissal because of protected disclosure was dismissed. The tribunal found there was no qualifying disclosure, no protected disclosure, and in any event the decision to dismiss had been made before the alleged January 2022 disclosures. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | Detriment because of protected disclosure was dismissed because the tribunal found the claimant had not made a protected disclosure. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- section 108 ERA
- sections 94 and 98 ERA
- section 43B(1) ERA
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.