Case 6045922/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Alexander Thomas v Babcock International — 2026
- Case reference
- 6045922/2025
- Decision date
- 5 January 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hay Representation
- Venue
- Bristol ET via CVP
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Alexander Thomas
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant applied for interim relief under s161 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. The judgment states that the underlying unfair dismissal claim was based on s152(1)(b).
The Tribunal recorded that, for such an application, it could not entertain the application unless the required written certificate from an authorised official of the relevant independent trade union was presented. No such certificate had been presented or was available, so the Tribunal held that it had no jurisdiction to hear the application and dismissed it.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Trade union | The judgment dismissed the application for interim relief under s161 TULRCA 1992 because the required certificate was not presented. The underlying unfair dismissal claim was based on s152(1)(b), but the short judgment adjudicated only the interim relief application. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- s161 TULRCA 1992
- s161(3) TULRCA 1992
- s152(1)(b) TULRCA 1992
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.