Case 3335015/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Miss J Porter, claimant’s mother For the v Mr J Chambers, Solicitor — 2020
- Case reference
- 3335015/2018
- Decision date
- 31 July 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Midgley Appearances
- Venue
- Bristol
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss J Porter, claimant’s mother For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a preliminary hearing in Bristol on 27 to 31 July 2020, Employment Judge Midgley dismissed the claimant's whistleblowing detriment complaints. The tribunal found that the claimant was not subjected to the detriments alleged, or that where he did suffer a detriment it was not because he had made protected disclosures. It also recorded that the respondent did not breach the implied term of mutual trust and confidence on that basis.
The claimant's automatic unfair dismissal claim based on protected disclosures was dismissed because he resigned and was not dismissed for the purposes of s.95 ERA 1996. On the same footing, the claim for notice pay was dismissed.
The tribunal also dismissed the age-related harassment claim and the direct age discrimination claim. The only complaint found well founded was the complaint about Mr Mundle's comments on 12 January 2018, but the tribunal held that it was presented out of time and that it would not be just and equitable to extend time, so the complaint was dismissed. No monetary award was recorded.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | Claim that the claimant suffered detriments because he made protected disclosures was dismissed. The tribunal found he was not subjected to the alleged detriments, or that where he did suffer a detriment it was not because of a protected disclosure. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | Claim of automatic unfair dismissal on the grounds of protected disclosures was dismissed. The tribunal found the claimant resigned and was not dismissed for the purposes of s.95 ERA 1996. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Claim for notice pay was dismissed because the claimant resigned and was not dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Harassment | Age-related harassment claim was dismissed. | Dismissed | Age | — |
| Age discrimination | Direct age discrimination claim was dismissed except for the complaint concerning Mr Mundle's comments on 12 January 2018, which the tribunal found well founded but out of time. It held that it was not just and equitable to extend time, so that complaint was also dismissed. | Dismissed | Age | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- s.95 ERA 1996
- just and equitable extension of time
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.