Mr H Tebani v Arcus FM Limited — 2025

Case reference: 6004446/2024
Decision date: 9 May 2025
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Byrne Members
Venue: East London Hearing Centre
Panel members: Ms J Clark, Ms R Hewitt

Indexed: 22 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Mr H Tebani

Respondent

Arcus FM Limited

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The tribunal rejected the claimant's protected disclosure detriment complaint under section 47B Employment Rights Act 1996 and dismissed it. It also rejected the automatic unfair dismissal complaint under section 103A Employment Rights Act 1996 and dismissed it.

The tribunal further dismissed the claimant's ordinary unfair dismissal complaint under section 94 Employment Rights Act 1996. The written record gives the outcomes but does not set out the tribunal's oral reasons beyond those dispositional findings.

Claims and outcomes

3 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Whistleblowing	The tribunal stated that the protected disclosure detriment claim under section 47B Employment Rights Act 1996 was not upheld and dismissed.	Dismissed	—	—
Whistleblowing	The tribunal stated that the automatic unfair dismissal claim under section 103A Employment Rights Act 1996 was not upheld and dismissed.	Dismissed	—	—
Unfair dismissal	The tribunal stated that the ordinary unfair dismissal claim under section 94 Employment Rights Act 1996 was not upheld and dismissed.	Dismissed	—	—

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.

Open official judgment PDF on gov.uk

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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.