Case 6000626/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Tresair v The Governing Body of Kings’ School and 1 other — 2025
- Case reference
- 6000626/2024
- Decision date
- 5 December 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Bradford Representation
- Venue
- Southampton
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mr M Tresair
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal dismissed the claims against Hampshire County Council because the complaints related to unfair dismissal and automatically unfair dismissal, which the judgment states could be brought against The Governing Body of Kings' School under the Education (Modification of Enactments Relating to Employment) (England) Order 2003.
The tribunal found that the claimant's complaints of automatically unfair dismissal and unfair dismissal against The Governing Body of Kings' School under Part X Employment Rights Act 1996 were not well-founded and dismissed them. The written judgment records that reasons were given orally and that written reasons would only be provided if requested.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment states that the unfair dismissal complaint against the Second Respondent is dismissed because it can be brought against the First Respondent, and that the unfair dismissal complaint against the First Respondent is not well-founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | The judgment describes this as Automatically Unfair Dismissal under Part X Employment Rights Act 1996. The gov.uk listing category refers to Public Interest Disclosure, so this has been classified as whistleblowing with moderate confidence. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.