Case 6001621/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Maximilian Withey v Entserv UK Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 6001621/2025
- Decision date
- 14 May 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge George Representation
- Venue
- Reading
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Maximilian Withey
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Mr Maximilian Withey, applied for interim relief in relation to the termination of his apprenticeship employment with Entserv UK Limited. The tribunal heard the application on 13 March 2025 and considered it on a summary basis under ss.128 and 129 ERA 1996.
The tribunal examined Mr Withey's email of 4 November 2024, which raised alleged falsification in formal documentation, threats to remove him from the business, and concerns said to amount to bullying and harassment in the context of his return from sickness absence. It found that the first and second aspects were likely to show a breach of a legal obligation under s.43B(1)(b) ERA 1996, but that the third aspect was not likely to show health and safety endangerment under s.43B(1)(d).
On the public interest issue, the tribunal held that the email focused on the claimant's own personal circumstances and that it was not likely, at this interim stage, that he would establish a genuine and reasonable belief that the communication was in the public interest. It therefore concluded that it was not likely that the communication would be found to be a protected disclosure, and if that were wrong it was also not likely that the protected disclosure was the reason or principal reason for dismissal. Interim relief was refused.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | The hearing determined only the application for interim relief under ss.128-129 ERA 1996. The tribunal refused interim relief after concluding that the claimant was not likely to establish that his dismissal was because of a protected disclosure. The underlying claim was not finally determined in this judgment. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
10 references- s.128 ERA 1996
- s.129 ERA 1996
- Taplin v C Shippam Ltd
- Ministry of Justice v Sarfas
- Al Qasimi v Robinson
- Chesterton Global Ltd v Nurmohamed
- s.43B(1)(b) ERA 1996
- s.43B(1)(c) ERA 1996
- s.43B(1)(d) ERA 1996
- s.103A ERA 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.