Case 6005751/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr K Whelan v GenSight Ltd — 2025
- Case reference
- 6005751/2024
- Decision date
- 20 October 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Wright REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr K Whelan
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard at Croydon by CVP between 25 and 30 September 2025 before Employment Judge Wright. The claimant, Mr K Whelan, appeared in person and the respondent, GenSight Ltd, was represented by counsel. The published judgment records that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested.
The tribunal held that the claimant's Equality Act 2010 discrimination claims were not well-founded and dismissed them. The short-form judgment does not set out detailed reasons for that conclusion in the published record.
The tribunal upheld the unfair dismissal complaint and expressly found that Mr Whelan was unfairly dismissed. It ordered the respondent to pay a compensatory award of £3,364.55. No separate basic award, injury to feelings award, or interest is recorded in the judgment text provided.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age discrimination | The short-form judgment dismisses 'claims of unlawful discrimination contrary to the Equality Act 2010' but does not identify the protected characteristic in the published text; classified here as age discrimination on the basis of the case listing/context. | Dismissed | Age | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the claimant was unfairly dismissed and ordered the respondent to pay a compensatory award of £3,364.55. | Upheld | — | £3,365 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £3,365
- across all upheld claims
- Compensatory award
- £3,365
- compensatory remedy recorded
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.