Case 6010014/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Did not attend and was not represented For the v Respondent — 2024
- Case reference
- 6010014/2024
- Decision date
- 7 November 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Laidler
- Venue
- Bury St Edmunds
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Did not attend and was not represented For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant issued proceedings on 30 August 2024 while still employed by the respondent, having started work on 27 May 2024. In his ET1 he ticked whistleblowing and said he believed he had been treated unfairly because he had spoken to a manager and nothing happened about staff searching for a patient's family and girlfriend on Facebook from their mobile. The respondent submitted that the ET1 did not contain particulars that could amount to a protected disclosure within the meaning of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
The claimant did not attend the CVP hearing. The judge had a late email from the claimant the night before, saying he could not open the ET1 to send it to his union, but he did not join the hearing. The tribunal treated the matter as a summary process and considered it on the papers. It found nothing in the ET1 to suggest that a protected disclosure within the statutory definition had been made, and noted that the claimant could have attended to explain his position but did not.
The tribunal therefore held that the application for interim relief was without merit and dismissed it. The judgment records the application as refused, and no monetary remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Application for interim relief in proceedings where the ET1 ticked whistleblowing; the tribunal found no particulars showing a protected disclosure within s.43B ERA 1996. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- s.43B ERA 1996
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.