Case 6019886/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v Whitehead building services — 2025
- Case reference
- 6019886/2024
- Decision date
- 21 March 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Leith Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningBy a letter dated 21 March 2025, the tribunal gave the claimant an opportunity to make representations or request a hearing on whether the claim should not be struck out for having no reasonable prospect of success. The tribunal identified three reasons on the claimant's own case: he did not make a qualifying disclosure, so the protected disclosure claims could not succeed; he was paid for his notice period, so no wrongful dismissal claim could succeed; and he lacked the qualifying service needed to bring an unfair dismissal claim under section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
The claimant did not make written representations, or did not make sufficient representations, and did not request a hearing. The tribunal therefore struck out the claim. The judgment was approved by Employment Judge Leith Date on 3 June 2025 and sent to the parties on 15 July 2025.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | The tribunal struck out the protected disclosure claims because, on the claimant's own case, he did not make a qualifying disclosure. | Struck out | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | The tribunal struck out the wrongful dismissal claim because, on the claimant's own case, he was paid for his notice period. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal struck out the unfair dismissal claim because, on the claimant's own case, he lacked the qualifying service required by section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- no reasonable prospect of success
- section 108 of the 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.