Case 6000238/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S Wood v Michael Thompstone, Rosemary Thompstone, and Christopher Thompstone trading as Rolleston Park Farm (a partnership) RECORD OF A PUBLIC PRELIMINARY HEARING — 2024
- Case reference
- 6000238/2024
- Decision date
- 5 June 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Shore Appearances
- Venue
- Nottingham Tribunal Hearing Centre
Parties
2 namedKey findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the public preliminary hearing on 5 June 2024 before Employment Judge Shore, the claimant, Mr S Wood, brought claims against Michael Thompstone, Rosemary Thompstone, and Christopher Thompstone trading as Rolleston Park Farm, a partnership. The Tribunal dismissed the claim of unfair dismissal under section 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 because it held that it did not have jurisdiction to hear it.
The Tribunal also dismissed the claimant's automatic unfair dismissal claim under section 103A of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and the detriment claim under section 47B of that Act, both said to arise from protected disclosures. In each instance, the dismissal was on the basis that the Tribunal did not have jurisdiction to hear the claim.
The claimant's unlawful deduction from wages claim under section 13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 was dismissed upon withdrawal. The respondent's application for a costs order was refused. 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 on the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed because the Tribunal held that it did not have jurisdiction to hear the claim under section 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | The claim for automatic unfair dismissal because the claimant made a protected disclosure under section 103A of the Employment Rights Act 1996 was dismissed because the Tribunal held that it did not have jurisdiction to hear it. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | The detriment claim for making a protected disclosure under section 47B of the Employment Rights Act 1996 was dismissed because the Tribunal held that it did not have jurisdiction to hear it. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The claim under section 13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 was dismissed upon withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- s.98 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.103A Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.47B Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.13 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.