Case 6034488/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Peter Jones v St Antony's College in the University of Oxford — 2025
- Case reference
- 6034488/2025
- Decision date
- 7 November 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Alliott Representation
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Peter Jones
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal granted the claimant's application for interim relief and made a continuation of contract order under section 129(9)(b) of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The claimant had presented a claim that his dismissal was automatically unfair because he had made a protected disclosure.
The tribunal stated that it was not making findings of fact, but concluded on the material available that the claimant had a pretty good chance of establishing that he disclosed information about serious compliance issues, especially fire safety, and that matters were delayed, ignored or not dealt with by management. It also concluded that he had a pretty good chance of establishing a genuine and reasonable belief, public interest, and that the real reason for dismissal was the protected disclosures.
The respondent refused to reinstate or re-engage the claimant, so the tribunal made a continuation of contract order. No monetary award was made in the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | The judgment grants interim relief on an application relating to an automatically unfair dismissal claim under section 103A ERA 1996; it is not a final determination of the underlying dismissal claim. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
7 references- section 128 ERA 1996
- section 129 ERA 1996
- section 103A ERA 1996
- section 43B ERA 1996
- London City Airport Limited v Chacko
- Taplin v C Shippam Limited
- pretty good chance of success
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.