Case 3311926/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr F San Diego v Bagshot Rehab Centre Limited and 1 other — 2023
- Case reference
- 3311926/2020
- Decision date
- 13 January 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Anstis
- Venue
- Reading
- Panel members
- Mrs A E Brown, Mr G Edwards
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mr F San Diego
Respondents
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard at Reading by Employment Judge Anstis sitting with lay members Mrs A E Brown and Mr G Edwards on 25 and 27 July 2022 and 11 to 13 January 2023. The claimant, Mr F San Diego, appeared in person and the respondents were represented by counsel.
The written judgment records only the outcome: the claimant's claims were dismissed. The note on the record states that reasons for the judgment were given orally at the hearing and that no written reasons will be provided unless requested in accordance with the tribunal's standard process.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | The written record contains only the dispositive judgment; the tribunal recorded that the claimant's claims were dismissed and that reasons were given orally at the hearing. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The written record contains only the dispositive judgment; the tribunal recorded that the claimant's claims were dismissed and that reasons were given orally at the hearing. | Dismissed | — | — |
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.