Case 8000015/2026 · Employment Tribunal
M Kearns Mr R Coulter v Mj Fort UK Ltd — 2026
- Case reference
- 8000015/2026
- Decision date
- 1 June 2026
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Mrs
- Venue
- Glasgow
Parties
2 namedClaimant
M Kearns Mr R Coulter
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr Coulter was employed by MJ Fort UK Ltd from 1 April 2025 until 27 July 2025 as manager of its Monterey Jack's restaurant at Glasgow Fort. The respondent did not defend the claim and did not attend the hearing. The claimant pursued complaints of automatically unfair dismissal for making protected disclosures, holiday pay, and arrears of pay; he withdrew the arrears of pay claim at the hearing.
The tribunal accepted that the claimant disclosed information to the respondent about expired fire safety certification, the absence of a professional process for sanitary bin waste, and a junior employee repeatedly cleaning floor mops in food preparation sinks. It found those disclosures had sufficient factual content, were believed by the claimant to be in the public interest, and reasonably tended to show failures to comply with legal obligations and danger to staff or customer health and safety. A later disclosure about legal breaks for a 16 year old worker was also found to be a protected disclosure, but the tribunal did not find it was a reason or principal reason for dismissal because the respondent had already expressed an intention to dismiss the claimant on 10 July 2025.
On causation, the tribunal found on the balance of probabilities that the reason or principal reason for dismissal was the protected disclosures about fire safety certification, sanitary waste disposal, and mop cleaning. It noted that the claimant's probationary period had expired on 1 July 2025 without performance or suitability issues being raised, that the claimant continued to press the fire certification and hygiene matters, and that the respondent's allocation of about 75 hours' work to him on 20 July did not appear consistent with any genuine reason for dismissal. The dismissal was therefore unfair under section 103A Employment Rights Act 1996.
The tribunal made no basic award because the claimant did not have sufficient service. It awarded a compensatory award of £3,558 for five weeks' unemployment from 28 July to 31 August 2025, based on weekly pay of £711.54 and rounded to the nearest whole pound; the Employment Protection (Recoupment of Benefits) Regulations 1996 applied. It also awarded £348 for three days' accrued but untaken holiday pay. The combined sum ordered was £3,906.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed for the reason or principal reason that he made protected disclosures, making the dismissal unfair under section 103A Employment Rights Act 1996. | Upheld | — | £3,558 |
| Holiday pay | The respondent failed to pay three days' holiday pay accrued but untaken on termination. | Upheld | — | £348 |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The arrears of pay claim was dismissed upon withdrawal by the claimant at the hearing and had not been quantified. | Withdrawn | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £3,906
- across all upheld claims
- Compensatory award
- £3,558
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
10 references- section 103A Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 43A Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 43B Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 43C Employment Rights Act 1996
- Williams v Michelle Brown AM UKEAT/0044/19
- Cavendish Munro Professional Risk Management Ltd v Geduld 2010 ICR 325
- Kilraine v London Borough of Wandsworth [2018] EWCA Civ 1436
- Chesterton Global Limited v Nurmohamed [2017] IRLR 837
- Babula v Waltham Forest College [2007] ICR 1026
- Employment Protection (Recoupment of Benefits) Regulations 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.