Case 3313116/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr. G. Thompson v Securitas Security Services (UK) Ltd. Hearing: Public Preliminary Hearing — 2025
- Case reference
- 3313116/2023
- Decision date
- 23 May 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Tinnion Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr. G. Thompson
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a public preliminary hearing by video/CVP at Newcastle Employment Tribunal on 23 May 2025 before Employment Judge Tinnion. The Respondent applied under Rule 38(a) to strike out parts of the Claimant’s April 2025 Grounds of Claim on the footing that there was no reasonable prospect of showing that certain statements amounted to protected disclosures, or that a later matter was a detriment arising from protected disclosure.
The tribunal granted the application to a limited extent. It struck out the words "things went too far and had to stop" from Protected Disclosure #2 and the words "things were getting worse" from Protected Disclosure #3. It also struck out Detriment #4 in paragraph 43 of the April 2025 Grounds of Claim, because there was no reasonable prospect of showing that it was a detriment the Claimant was subjected to on the ground that he had made one or more protected disclosures.
Reasons were given orally at the hearing. The judgment records that written reasons would not be provided unless timely requested. No monetary remedy was awarded in this decision, which dealt only with the strike-out application.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | Rule 38(a) application granted to strike out the words "things went too far and had to stop" from Protected Disclosure #2 (April 2025 GoC, para. 25) and the words "things were getting worse" from Protected Disclosure #3 (April 2025 GoC, para. 30), on the basis there was no reasonable prospect of showing they were, or formed part of, a protected disclosure. | Struck out | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | Rule 38(a) application granted to strike out Detriment #4 (April 2025 GoC, para. 43) on the basis there was no reasonable prospect of showing it was a detriment the Claimant was subjected to on the ground that he had made one or more protected disclosures. | Struck out | — | — |
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.