Case 6014881/2026 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D Marajh v 3CHA Ltd — 2026
- Case reference
- 6014881/2026
- Decision date
- 3 July 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Daniels At
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D Marajh
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningOn the interim relief application, the Tribunal found pursuant to section 129(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 that Mr Marajh was likely to succeed at the final hearing in establishing that the principal reason for his dismissal was that he had made a protected disclosure or protected disclosures. The judgment expressly states that the order did not determine the merits of the substantive claim.
The Tribunal considered reinstatement and re-engagement, but 3CHA Ltd indicated that it was unwilling to reinstate or re-engage Mr Marajh. Pursuant to section 130 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, the Tribunal ordered his contract of employment to continue in force from the effective date of termination, 23 April 2026, until determination or settlement of the complaint.
Under the continuation order, 3CHA Ltd was required to pay £1,302.12, the agreed sum Mr Marajh could reasonably have been expected to earn between termination and the hearing on 3 June 2026. From that hearing date, the respondent was ordered to pay £39,500 gross per month as salary and contractual benefits equivalent, through the normal contractual pay cycle, until determination or settlement of the proceedings, including normal contractual pension payments if any.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | The interim relief application was granted, but the substantive whistleblowing dismissal complaint was not finally determined. The Tribunal found that the Claimant was likely to succeed at the final hearing. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- section 129(1) Employment Rights Act 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.