Claimant v JD Sports Fashion plc
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found that the claim of automatically unfair dismissal under s.103A Employment Rights Act 1996 (whistleblowing dismissal) was not well founded and dismissed it.
The tribunal concluded that the ordinary unfair dismissal claim was not well founded and dismissed it.
The tribunal found that the claim of wrongful dismissal (breach of contract in relation to dismissal) was not well founded and dismissed it.
The tribunal determined that the claims of harassment related to race were not well founded and dismissed them.
The tribunal found that the claims of victimisation under the Equality Act 2010 were not well founded and dismissed them.
The tribunal concluded that the claims of direct discrimination because of race were not well founded and dismissed them.
The tribunal found that the claims of whistleblowing detriment under the Employment Rights Act 1996 were not well founded and dismissed them.
Facts
Mr Lloyd brought multiple claims against his former employer JD Sports Fashion plc, including automatically unfair dismissal for whistleblowing, ordinary unfair dismissal, wrongful dismissal, and various race discrimination claims (harassment, victimisation, and direct discrimination), as well as whistleblowing detriment claims. The hearing took place over five days in Manchester.
Decision
The tribunal unanimously dismissed all of Mr Lloyd's claims, finding none of them to be well founded. The tribunal rejected his whistleblowing dismissal claim under s.103A ERA 1996, his unfair and wrongful dismissal claims, and all his race discrimination and whistleblowing detriment claims.
Practical note
A self-represented claimant bringing multiple claims including whistleblowing and race discrimination against a major retail employer failed on all claims after a five-day hearing, with the tribunal finding none of the claims well founded.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 2407148/2023
- Decision date
- 20 June 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 5
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- retail
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No