Case 6012698/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Vernon Broughton v Svitzer Marine Limited — 2026
- Case reference
- 6012698/2025
- Decision date
- 19 May 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Grahame Anderson
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Vernon Broughton
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Grahame Anderson allowed Vernon Broughton to amend his claim to include discrimination arising from disability under s.15 of the Equality Act 2010 and indirect discrimination under s.19. The order does not specify the protected characteristic underlying the s.19 claim and does not determine the substantive merits of either discrimination claim.
The claimant was also permitted to add a whistleblowing detriment claim under s.47B of the Employment Rights Act 1996 concerning the parallel running of the grievance and capability processes with the managers complained against and the handling of the grievance appeal by Mr Pattenden. Permission to add a whistleblowing detriment claim concerning exclusion from safety committee meetings was refused. No remedy or monetary award was determined.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The application to amend the claim to include discrimination arising from disability contrary to s.15 of the Equality Act 2010 succeeded. The substantive merits were not determined. | Other | Disability | — |
| Other | The application to amend the claim to include indirect discrimination contrary to s.19 of the Equality Act 2010 succeeded. The order does not identify the protected characteristic underlying this proposed claim or determine its substantive merits. | Other | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | The application to amend the claim to include whistleblowing detriment contrary to s.47B of the Employment Rights Act 1996 succeeded in relation to the parallel running of the grievance and capability processes with the managers complained against and the handling of the grievance appeal by Mr Pattenden. The substantive merits were not determined. | Other | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | The application to amend the claim to pursue whistleblowing detriment arising from exclusion from safety committee meetings was refused. This was a procedural ruling on amendment, not a determination of the substantive claim. | Other | — | — |
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.