Case 3312234/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs J May, solicitor For the v Respondent — 2021
- Case reference
- 3312234/2020
- Decision date
- 16 November 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge George Members
- Panel members
- Ms J Fiddler, Mr N Boustred
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Mrs J May, solicitor For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard remotely by CVP at Watford on 5 and 6 October 2021 before Employment Judge George, with Ms J Fiddler and Mr N Boustred as the tribunal members. The claimant was represented by Mrs J May and the respondent by Mr M Maitland-Jones. The judgment records that the hearing was remote because it was not practicable to hold it face to face and no party objected.
The tribunal found that the claimant’s claims of detriment on grounds of protected disclosure and/or health and safety grounds were not well founded. It also found that the claims of automatically unfair dismissal for the reason or principal reason of protected disclosure and/or health and safety grounds were not well founded. The result was that all claims were dismissed.
No remedy was awarded. The written record also states that reasons had been given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | The judgment states that the claims of detriment on grounds of protected disclosure and/or on health and safety grounds were not well founded. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment states that the claims of automatically unfair dismissal for the reason or principal reason of protected disclosure and/or on health and safety grounds were not well founded. | 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.