Case 6033653/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs S Akinkugbe v Wilson James Ltd — 2025
- Case reference
- 6033653/2025
- Decision date
- 8 December 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs S Akinkugbe
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant applied for interim relief against Wilson James Ltd at a public preliminary hearing. The application was brought pursuant to sections 103A and 128 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and related to an allegation that she was unfairly dismissed for making a protected disclosure.
Employment Judge Dimbylow found that the interim relief application was not well-founded, failed, and was dismissed. The judgment records that it did not appear likely that, when determining the related complaint, the tribunal would find that the claimant was unfairly dismissed for making a protected disclosure.
Reasons were given orally at the hearing. The written judgment states that no written reasons would be provided unless requested, and no such request was made at the hearing.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | The judgment dismissed the claimant's interim relief application under sections 103A and 128 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The tribunal stated that it did not appear likely that, on determining the related complaint, it would find that the claimant was unfairly dismissed for making a protected disclosure. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- sections 103A and 128 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.