Case 6021969/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Daniel Franklin v Lodge Security Ltd — 2025
- Case reference
- 6021969/2025
- Decision date
- 3 July 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Fowell Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Daniel Franklin
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr Franklin began work for Lodge Security Ltd on 7 May 2025 as a zero-hours security guard deployed at Boots in Maidstone. On 9 May 2025 Boots’ Area Manager raised concerns about a previous incident involving excessive use of force and rudeness, and wanted him removed. After Mr Franklin was invited on 19 May 2025 to an investigation meeting, he sent an email on 20 May 2025 complaining of serious legal and procedural concerns, referring to data protection, the Employment Rights Act 1996 and the ACAS Code, and saying he would not attend any meeting until he had full disclosure of the reasons and evidence.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | Application for interim relief under sections 103A and 128 ERA 1996 dismissed. The tribunal said it was not likely the final tribunal would find dismissal was for making a protected disclosure. No final merits determination was made. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Victimisation | The tribunal said the claim form also referred to victimisation, but no discrimination boxes were ticked and no protected act beyond the 20 May 2025 email was identified. It said the claim appeared to have little reasonable prospect of success, but there was no final merits determination. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
9 references- s.128(5) ERA 1996
- s.129 ERA 1996
- Taplin v C, Shippam Limited
- Ministry of Justice v Sarfraz
- Al Qasimi v Robinson
- s.43A ERA 1996
- s.43B ERA 1996
- Cavendish Munro Professional Risk Management Limited v Geduld
- Kilraine v London Borough of 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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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.