Case 3313508/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Townend (Family Friend). For the v Mr Huggins (Managing Director). — 2021
- Case reference
- 3313508/2020
- Decision date
- 9 September 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Postle Members
- Panel members
- Mr B Smith, Ms K Knapton
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Townend (Family Friend). For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Mr D Hodgson, brought a claim against J Huggins & Sons Ltd t/a National Windscreens alleging that he had been automatically unfairly dismissed for raising health and safety issues under s.100(1)(c) of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The hearing took place at Norwich by CVP on 9 September 2021 before Employment Judge Postle, sitting with members Mr B Smith and Ms K Knapton.
The tribunal's unanimous judgment was that the claim failed. It found that Mr Hodgson was not automatically unfairly dismissed for raising health and safety issues. The written record states that reasons had been given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested in accordance with the note at the end of the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal unanimously rejected the claimant's claim that he was automatically unfairly dismissed for raising health and safety issues under s.100(1)(c) Employment Rights Act 1996. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- s.100(1)(c) Employment Rights Act 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.