Case 6003967/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Ms L Oakes v Bolton Metropolitan Borough Council HELD AT: Manchester hybrid via CVP — 2024
- Case reference
- 6003967/2024
- Decision date
- 12 July 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Johnson
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms L Oakes
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant applied for interim relief in connection with an automatic unfair dismissal complaint under section 103A ERA. She relied on alleged protected disclosures made on 30 March 2022 and 1 April 2022 about an unexpected invoice issued to a service user for whom she also worked as a PA. The respondent said the dismissal related to conduct concerns about the claimant's separate roles and use of Council data.
The tribunal stated that it was not making findings of fact at this hearing. It was not satisfied, for interim relief purposes, that the alleged disclosures were likely to be more than bare allegations or that all elements of the section 103A complaint were likely to succeed. It also noted that the respondent had a good arguable case that there were other reasons for dismissal, while leaving the substantive issues for a final hearing.
The application for interim relief did not succeed. The judgment also recorded that a disability discrimination complaint had previously been struck out because no early conciliation number had been provided.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | The tribunal refused the application for interim relief, finding it was not likely in the required sense that the claimant would succeed with the section 103A automatic unfair dismissal complaint. The underlying complaint was left for final hearing and was not dismissed in this judgment. | Other | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The judgment records that the disability discrimination complaint had been struck out on 28 June 2024 because no early conciliation number had been provided. | Struck out | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
8 references- section 128 ERA 1996
- section 129(1) ERA 1996
- section 103A ERA 1996
- Hancock v Ter-Berg
- Taplin v C.Shippam Limited
- pretty good chance of succeeding
- section 43B ERA 1996
- Royal Mail Ltd v Jhuti
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.