Case 6000278/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Mamode Abegha v Greater London Cradles Limited (in voluntary liquidation) — 2026
- Case reference
- 6000278/2025
- Decision date
- 10 July 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge MJ Smith
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Mamode Abegha
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that Mr Mamode Abegha was an employee of Greater London Cradles Limited (in voluntary liquidation) at the relevant time, allowing his unfair dismissal and protected disclosure detriment claims to proceed. It dismissed the unfair dismissal claim as not well-founded.
Two protected disclosure detriment complaints succeeded. These concerned a complaint made to the respondent's directors on a GLC complaint form on 24 October 2024 about steel ropes being dropped close to Mr Abegha, and a complaint made through the all staff WhatsApp group on 28 October 2024 about loose bolts on a cradle and on a counter balance. The remaining protected disclosure detriment complaints were dismissed as not well-founded.
The tribunal ordered the respondent to pay £1,500 for financial losses and £1,400 for injury to feelings, totalling £2,900. Reasons for the judgment were given orally at the hearing on 10 July 2026.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found that the claim was not well-founded. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | Upheld in part. The protected disclosure detriment complaints concerning reports made on 24 and 28 October 2024 succeeded. The remaining complaints were dismissed as not well-founded. Compensation was not apportioned between the successful complaints. | Upheld | — | £2,900 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,900
- across all upheld claims
- Compensatory award
- £1,500
- compensatory remedy recorded
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.