Claimant v Blue Art Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found the dismissal was unfair under ERA 1996 sections 94, 98 and 111. The complaint was well-founded and the respondent failed to demonstrate a fair reason or procedure for dismissal. The claimant was awarded basic and compensatory awards totalling £33,720.12.
The complaint of victimisation by detriment for making a protected disclosure under ERA 1996 section 47B was not well-founded. The tribunal was not satisfied that the claimant suffered detriment by reason of having made a protected disclosure.
The complaint of automatically unfair dismissal by reason of having made a protected disclosure under ERA 1996 sections 94, 103A and 111 was not well-founded. The tribunal did not find that the reason or principal reason for dismissal was the making of a protected disclosure.
Facts
The claimant was employed by Blue Art Limited until his dismissal on 6 August 2024. He brought claims of unfair dismissal and whistleblowing-related claims. The respondent company entered voluntary liquidation and did not appear at the hearing. The claimant appeared in person and presented his case.
Decision
The tribunal found the unfair dismissal claim well-founded and awarded compensation totalling £33,720.12. However, both whistleblowing-related claims (detriment and automatic unfair dismissal) were dismissed as not well-founded. The tribunal was satisfied the dismissal was unfair but not that it was related to protected disclosures.
Practical note
A claimant can succeed in ordinary unfair dismissal even where whistleblowing claims fail, demonstrating that the reason for dismissal may be unfair without being automatically unfair under section 103A ERA 1996.
Award breakdown
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 6007733/2024
- Decision date
- 24 October 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Name
- Blue Art Limited
- Sector
- other
- Represented
- No
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No