Case 6003001/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Young Lives v Cancer) — 2025
- Case reference
- 6003001/2024
- Decision date
- 8 January 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Young Lives
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningBy an order dated 20 December 2024, sent to the parties on 8 January 2025, the tribunal required the claimant to pay a deposit of £100 within one month as a condition of being permitted to pursue his automatically unfair dismissal complaint under section 103A of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and three complaints that he had been subjected to detriments for having made protected disclosures under section 47B of the Act.
No deposits were received. Employment Judge D N Jones therefore struck out the automatic unfair dismissal claim and the three protected disclosure detriment complaints. The judgment is dated 19 February 2025 and records no monetary award.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Automatically unfair dismissal under section 103A ERA 1996; struck out after no £100 deposit was received. | Struck out | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | One of three complaints that the claimant was subjected to detriments for having made protected disclosures under section 47B ERA 1996; struck out after no £100 deposit was received. | Struck out | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | One of three complaints that the claimant was subjected to detriments for having made protected disclosures under section 47B ERA 1996; struck out after no £100 deposit was received. | Struck out | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | One of three complaints that the claimant was subjected to detriments for having made protected disclosures under section 47B ERA 1996; struck out after no £100 deposit was received. | Struck out | — | — |
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.