Case 3308135/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A McGuigan v Biffa Waste Services Ltd RECORD OF A PRELIMINARY HEARING Heard on 6 February 2025 (by remote video link -CVP) — 2025
- Case reference
- 3308135/2023
- Decision date
- 6 February 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A McGuigan
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a preliminary hearing on 6 February 2025 before Employment Judge D N Jones, with the claimant appearing in person and the respondent represented by counsel, the tribunal dealt only with strike-out issues. The complaint that the claimant had been subjected to detriments for making protected disclosures was struck out because it had no reasonable prospect of success and, in the tribunal's view, was presented out of time.
The complaint for unauthorised deductions from wages was also struck out on the basis that it had no reasonable prospect of success. The written record does not set out any further factual findings or any monetary award, and it records that the reasons were given orally at the hearing.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | Complaint of being subject to detriments for making protected disclosures was struck out because it had no reasonable prospect of success and was presented out of time. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Complaint for unauthorised deductions from wages was struck out on the ground that it had no reasonable prospect of success. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- no reasonable prospect of success
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.