Case 3307539/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Williams v J O’Doherty Haulage Ltd — 2021
- Case reference
- 3307539/2020
- Decision date
- 7 November 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Quill
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Williams
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard at Watford Employment Tribunal on 4 and 5 November 2021 before Employment Judge Quill sitting alone. The claimant was represented by Ms M Stanley and the respondent by Mr P Clarke.
The written judgment records two claims. First, the claimant brought a claim of unfair dismissal contrary to sections 94 and 103A of the Employment Rights Act 1996. Second, the claimant brought a claim of unfair dismissal contrary to sections 94 and 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
The tribunal found that both claims were not well-founded and dismissed them. The written record does not set out the tribunal's factual reasoning because reasons were given orally at the hearing, and no remedy was awarded in the written judgment.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | The judgment records a claim of unfair dismissal contrary to sections 94 and 103A of the Employment Rights Act 1996. No factual reasons are set out in the written record because reasons were given orally. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment records a claim of unfair dismissal contrary to sections 94 and 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. No factual reasons are set out in the written record because reasons were given orally. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- s.103A ERA 1996
- s.98 ERA 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.