Case 3306414/2022 · Employment Tribunal

In person For the v D Houghton Ltd T/a King Landscapes (In Voluntary Liquidation) — 2024

Case reference: 3306414/2022
Decision date: 5 January 2024
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Tynan Members
Venue: Cambridge
Panel members: Mr A Fryer, Mr R Baber

Indexed: 19 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

In person For the

Respondent

D Houghton Ltd T/a King Landscapes (In Voluntary Liquidation)

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The tribunal recorded that the respondent did not attend and was not represented. Reasons were given orally at the hearing, and the written judgment records only the outcome unless written reasons were requested.

The claimant's complaint that he was unfairly constructively dismissed contrary to sections 94 and 98, and section 100(1)(e) of the Employment Rights Act 1996, succeeded. His further complaint of unfair constructive dismissal contrary to section 100(1)(c) was not well founded and was dismissed.

The tribunal also upheld parts of the claimant's health and safety detriment complaint under section 44(1A)(b), identifying specified alleged detriments that succeeded in whole and one that succeeded in part. The remaining detriment complaints under sections 44(1)(c) and 44(1A)(b) were dismissed.

Claims and outcomes

4 findings recorded

This case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Unfair dismissal	The judgment states that the complaint that the claimant was unfairly constructively dismissed contrary to sections 94 and 98, and section 100(1)(e) of the Employment Rights Act 1996, succeeded.	Upheld	—	—
Unfair dismissal	The further complaint that the claimant was unfairly constructively dismissed contrary to section 100(1)(c) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 was not well founded and was dismissed.	Dismissed	—	—
Other	The section 44(1A)(b) Employment Rights Act 1996 detriment complaint succeeded in whole for specified alleged detriments and in part for one specified alleged detriment.	Upheld	—	—
Other	The remaining complaints alleging detriments in contravention of sections 44(1)(c) and 44(1A)(b) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 were not well founded and were dismissed.	Dismissed	—	—

Legal tests applied

5 references

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.