Claimant v Authenticated By Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found that the complaint of being subjected to detriment for making a protected disclosure was not well-founded. The tribunal was not satisfied that the claimant had been subjected to detriments as a result of making protected disclosures.
The tribunal found that the complaint of being dismissed for making a protected disclosure was not well-founded. The tribunal was not satisfied that the reason or principal reason for the claimant's dismissal was that he had made protected disclosures.
The tribunal found the complaint of breach of contract in relation to notice pay was well-founded. The respondent failed to pay the claimant the notice pay to which he was entitled under his contract of employment.
The tribunal found the complaint of unfair dismissal was well-founded. The claimant was unfairly dismissed. The respondent unreasonably failed to comply with the ACAS Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures, indicating a procedurally unfair dismissal.
Facts
Mr Ward brought claims against Authenticated By Limited alleging automatic unfair dismissal for whistleblowing, detriment for making protected disclosures, unfair dismissal, and breach of contract regarding notice pay. The claimant represented himself while the respondent was represented by a litigation consultant. The hearing took place remotely over three days.
Decision
The tribunal dismissed the whistleblowing claims (detriment and automatic unfair dismissal) but upheld the claims for ordinary unfair dismissal and breach of contract for notice pay. The tribunal found that the respondent had unreasonably failed to comply with the ACAS Code and applied a 25% uplift to the compensatory award. Total award was £28,593.27.
Practical note
Failing to follow ACAS disciplinary procedures can result in a substantial 25% uplift on compensatory awards, even where whistleblowing claims fail on their merits.
Award breakdown
Adjustments
Respondent unreasonably failed to comply with the ACAS Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures 2015
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 6009148/2024
- Decision date
- 23 October 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 3
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- technology
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- lay rep
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No