Case 6007733/2024 · Employment Tribunal

in person For the v Blue Art Ltd (in Voluntary Liquidation) — 2025

Case reference: 6007733/2024
Decision date: 24 October 2025
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Kenward
Venue: Manchester

Indexed: 25 April 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

in person For the

Respondent

Blue Art Ltd (in Voluntary Liquidation)

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

Employment Judge Kenward, sitting alone in Manchester, found that the claimant was unfairly dismissed by Blue Art Limited (in voluntary liquidation), which did not appear at the hearing. The complaint of victimisation by detriment for having made a protected disclosure under section 47B ERA 1996, and the complaint of automatically unfair dismissal under sections 94, 103A and 111 ERA 1996, were both not well-founded and were dismissed.

The respondent was ordered to pay a total of £33,720.12 in compensation, comprising a basic award of £4,200 and a compensatory award of £29,520.12 (a prescribed element of £15,814.65 covering loss of earnings from 6 August 2024 to 1 December 2024, and a non-prescribed element of £13,705.47).

The Employment Protection (Recoupment of Benefits) Regulations 1996 apply, with the prescribed element period running from 6 August 2024 to 24 October 2025.

Claims and outcomes

3 findings recorded

This case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Unfair dismissal	Basic award £4,200 plus compensatory award £29,520.12 (prescribed element £15,814.65; non-prescribed element £13,705.47). Recoupment Regulations apply.	Upheld	—	£33,720
Whistleblowing	Detriment claim under section 47B ERA 1996 not well-founded.	Dismissed	—	—
Unfair dismissal	Automatically unfair dismissal claim under sections 94, 103A and 111 ERA 1996 (protected disclosure) not well-founded.	Dismissed	—	—

Remedy

Monetary award

Total award: £33,720; across all upheld claims
Basic award: £4,200; statutory, unfair dismissal
Compensatory award: £29,520; compensatory remedy recorded

Legal tests applied

4 references

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.