Case 3308986/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Gilaad Hanan v Mr Ben Griggs and 1 other — 2024
- Case reference
- 3308986/2023
- Decision date
- 13 June 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Laidler Members
- Venue
- Bury St Edmunds
- Panel members
- Mr R Allen, Mr A Chinn - Shaw
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mr Gilaad Hanan
Respondents
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard at Bury St Edmunds on 29 April to 2 May 2024 before Employment Judge Laidler with members Mr R Allen and Mr A Chinn - Shaw. The tribunal held that Mr Hanan did not make protected disclosures within the meaning of section 43B Employment Rights Act 1996, so the whistleblowing claim failed.
It also found that the reason for his dismissal was not the making of protected disclosures contrary to section 103A ERA 1996 and was not the raising of health and safety issues contrary to section 100 ERA 1996. The tribunal rejected the harassment allegations said to relate to age, race, gender reassignment and sex, and concluded that all claims failed and were dismissed. No monetary award was made.
Claims and outcomes
7 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | The tribunal found that Mr Hanan did not make protected disclosures within the meaning of section 43B ERA 1996. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found that the reason for dismissal was not the making of protected disclosures contrary to section 103A ERA 1996. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found that the reason for dismissal was not the raising of health and safety issues contrary to section 100 ERA 1996. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Harassment | The tribunal found no harassment related to age as alleged or at all. | Dismissed | Age | — |
| Harassment | The tribunal found no harassment related to race as alleged or at all. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Harassment | The tribunal found no harassment related to gender reassignment as alleged or at all. | Dismissed | Gender reassignment | — |
| Harassment | The tribunal found no harassment related to sex as alleged or at all. | Dismissed |
Legal tests applied
3 references- s.43B ERA 1996
- s.103A ERA 1996
- s.100 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.