Claimant v Peterborough Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found that the claim of ordinary unfair dismissal contrary to Employment Rights Act 1996, s. 94 was not well founded. The judgment was delivered orally with no written reasons provided in this document.
The tribunal found that the claim of automatic unfair dismissal for whistleblowing contrary to Employment Rights Act 1996, s. 103A was not well founded. The tribunal rejected the claimant's whistleblowing claim after a three-day hearing.
Facts
Mr. P. Dudley brought claims against Peterborough Limited for both ordinary unfair dismissal and automatic unfair dismissal for whistleblowing. The case was heard over three days at Cambridge Employment Tribunal. The claimant represented himself while the respondent was represented by counsel.
Decision
The tribunal dismissed both claims, finding neither the ordinary unfair dismissal claim under s.94 ERA 1996 nor the automatic unfair dismissal claim under s.103A ERA 1996 was well founded. Oral reasons were given at the hearing but written reasons were not included in the published judgment.
Practical note
Self-represented claimants face significant challenges in pursuing whistleblowing claims against represented employers, particularly where the evidential burden of establishing protected disclosures must be met.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 3303837/2024
- Decision date
- 22 May 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 3
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- other
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No