Case 6002821/2024 · Employment Tribunal
L Thomas v The British Heart Foundation — 2024
- Case reference
- 6002821/2024
- Decision date
- 3 October 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Tegerdine Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
L Thomas
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was issued in the London South Employment Tribunals on 24 May 2024. The respondent failed to present a valid response on time, and the Employment Judge decided that a determination could properly be made under rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013.
The tribunal found that the claimant, L Thomas, was unfairly dismissed for making a protected disclosure pursuant to section 103A of the Employment Rights Act 1996. No separate findings are recorded on liability beyond that conclusion.
On remedy, the tribunal recorded that the effective date of termination was 15 April 2024 and that the claimant started a new job on 3 June 2024. It calculated 7 weeks' net loss of wages from 16 April 2024 to 2 June 2024 at 7 x £393, totalling £2,751, and then deducted one week's pay in lieu of notice of £393.
The compensatory award was therefore assessed at £2,358, and the total sum due to the claimant was recorded as £2,358. The respondent was ordered to pay that sum on or before 17 October 2024.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the claimant was unfairly dismissed for making a protected disclosure under section 103A ERA 1996. The respondent did not present a valid response on time and judgment was issued under rule 21. | Upheld | — | £2,358 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £2,358
- across all upheld claims
- Compensatory award
- £2,358
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
2 references- rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
- section 103A 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.