Case 6005408/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr B Stokes v Speedy Asset Services Ltd — 2024
- Case reference
- 6005408/2024
- Decision date
- 19 August 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Phil Allen
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr B Stokes
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Phil Allen heard the claimant's application for interim relief on 14 August 2024. The claimant had been employed by Speedy Asset Services Ltd as operations director from 8 April 2024 until 8 July 2024. He said that on 27 May 2024 he made a protected disclosure to Mr Seaman about colleagues allegedly inflating profit margins on a contract, and he also said he raised the same concerns again in a Teams meeting on 12 June 2024. The respondent denied that any such disclosure conversation took place, and Ms Sharpe said she made the decision to dismiss; she denied any knowledge of the alleged disclosure.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Interim relief application under section 129 ERA 1996, brought in relation to an alleged section 103A protected-disclosure dismissal claim, was refused. The tribunal did not determine the substantive liability claim at this stage. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
6 references- s.129 ERA 1996
- s.103A ERA 1996
- Taplin v C Shippam Ltd
- Ministry of Justice v Sarfraz
- Bombardier Aerospace v McConnell
- Al Qasimi v Robinson
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.