Case 6000444/2023 · Employment Tribunal

Mr A Weavin v Animal and Plant Health Agency — 2025

Case reference: 6000444/2023
Decision date: 30 June 2025
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Volkmer Representation
Venue: Exeter

Indexed: 18 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Mr A Weavin

Respondent

Animal and Plant Health Agency

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The Tribunal dismissed the complaints of detriment on the ground of making a protected disclosure. Detriments 1 to 10 were dismissed for want of jurisdiction because they were not presented within the applicable time limit and it was reasonably practicable to present them in time; detriments 11 to 13 were dismissed as not well founded.

The Tribunal also dismissed the complaint of automatically unfair dismissal on the ground of making a protected disclosure and the complaint of unfair dismissal, finding both were not well founded. The written judgment records that reasons were given orally and that written reasons would only be provided if requested.

Claims and outcomes

3 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Whistleblowing	Complaints of detriment on the ground of making a protected disclosure were dismissed. Detriments 1 to 10 were dismissed for want of jurisdiction because they were not presented within the applicable time limit and it was reasonably practicable to do so. Detriments 11 to 13 were dismissed as not well founded.	Dismissed	—	—
Whistleblowing	The complaint of automatically unfair dismissal on the ground of making a protected disclosure was not well founded and was dismissed.	Dismissed	—	—
Unfair dismissal	The complaint of unfair dismissal was not well founded and was dismissed.	Dismissed	—	—

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.