Case 3306483/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs H Bannerman v The Land Restoration Trust — 2024
- Case reference
- 3306483/2024
- Decision date
- 5 September 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Graham Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs H Bannerman
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Claimant applied for interim relief in a claim alleging automatic unfair dismissal for making protected disclosures under section 103A of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The tribunal considered written documents and submissions only, making clear that it was not conducting a fact-finding hearing.
The tribunal was not satisfied that it was likely a final tribunal would find that the Claimant had made a protected disclosure. It noted disputes and lack of clarity about what was said in the alleged disclosures on 2 and 8 February 2024, including whether specific words had been used and what the alleged disclosures tended to show.
The tribunal was also not satisfied that it was likely a final tribunal would find the alleged disclosures were the reason or principal reason for dismissal. It referred to competing suggested reasons, factual disputes, and the need for a final tribunal to hear evidence before determining causation. The application for interim relief was refused.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | The judgment refused the Claimant's application for interim relief in a section 103A protected disclosure dismissal claim; it did not finally determine the substantive claim. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
7 references- section 103A Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 43B Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 43C Employment Rights Act 1996
- Williams v Michelle Brown AM
- Cavendish Munro Professional Risks Management Ltd v Geduld
- Kilraine v London Borough of Wandsworth
- Norbrook
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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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.