Case 6032920/2025 · Employment Tribunal
written representations For the v Respondent — 2025
- Case reference
- 6032920/2025
- Decision date
- 4 December 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Kenward
Parties
1 namedClaimant
written representations For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a hearing on 2 December 2025 before Employment Judge Kenward sitting alone, with the Claimant appearing by written representations and Ms L Quigley of Counsel for the Respondent. The judgment was limited to the Claimant's application for interim relief in a protected-disclosure unfair dismissal case against Tiles UK Limited.
The tribunal held that the application for interim relief was not well founded and dismissed it. No remedy was awarded in this judgment. The decision was sent to the parties on 4 December 2025.
The judgment also records that, in relation to the Claimant's complaint of unfair dismissal on the ground of having made a protected disclosure contrary to section 103A of the Employment Rights Act 1996, a preliminary hearing will be listed for case management purposes once the Respondent's Response has been received and initially considered. The merits of that complaint were therefore not decided in this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | This judgment determined the Claimant's application for interim relief in a protected-disclosure unfair dismissal claim under section 103A ERA 1996. The application was found not well founded and dismissed. The underlying unfair dismissal complaint was not finally determined; the judgment records that a preliminary hearing will be listed for case management purposes subject to receipt and initial consideration of the Respondent's Response. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.