Case 6019373/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Ms Gabriella Henderson v Saxton 4X4 Ltd — 2025
- Case reference
- 6019373/2025
- Decision date
- 3 July 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge R Drake Dated
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms Gabriella Henderson
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMs Gabriella Henderson presented a claim on 23 May 2025 alleging automatic unfair dismissal because she had made protected disclosures. The hearing on 2 July 2025 was an application for interim relief, heard before Saxton 4X4 Ltd had filed an ET3. The tribunal applied s128 and s129 ERA 1996 and considered whether it was likely that the final hearing would find that the reason, or principal reason, for dismissal was one of the protected-disclosure reasons in s103A ERA 1996.
The tribunal found it likely that two disclosures made by the claimant were protected disclosures. On 9 May 2025 she reported to Mr Neil Mitchell that confidential legal documentation concerning another senior staff member had been left unsecured and openly accessible on a reception desk, which she believed amounted to breaches of the GDPR and Data Protection Acts. On 12 May 2025 she again reported to Mr Mitchell that she had seen two members of staff handing confidential documents to a member of reception staff, which she also said amounted to GDPR and DPA breaches. The judgment records that both disclosures gave rise to reports to the ICO.
On causation, the tribunal said the surrounding events showed a link between the disclosures and the dismissal on 20 May 2025. It noted the dismissive response after the 9 May disclosure, comments that the claimant should find another job, a remark on 14 May 2025 that Mr Mitchell did not believe she would be coming back, and the dismissal itself being carried out without prior warning or disciplinary procedure and without appeal rights being made clear. The tribunal concluded that, if the claimant established protected disclosures at the final hearing, it was likely that those disclosures would be found to have been the reason for her dismissal.
Interim relief therefore succeeded. The tribunal ordered that the claimant's pay be restored and continued at the previous contract rate from 20 May 2025 until the case was heard or otherwise disposed of. The claimant did not seek reinstatement at this stage, and the tribunal indicated that a case management hearing would be listed to set directions, finalise the list of issues, and list the full merits hearing.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | Interim relief was granted on the basis of an automatic unfair dismissal claim under s103A ERA 1996. The tribunal did not determine the final merits of the claim at this stage; it found it likely that the claimant would succeed at the full hearing. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
8 references- s.128 ERA 1996
- s.129 ERA 1996
- s.103A ERA 1996
- Taplin v C Shippam Ltd
- Ministry of Justice v Sarfraz
- Simply Smile Manor House Ltd and ors v Ter-Berg
- Cavendish Munro Professional Risk Management v Geldud
- Kilraine v LB Wandsworth
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.