Claimant v Asda Stores Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found the claimant's complaint of unfair constructive dismissal was not well-founded. The judgment indicates the claimant failed to establish either that there was a fundamental breach of contract by the respondent or that they resigned in response to such breach.
The tribunal dismissed the claim of automatic unfair dismissal by reason of having made a protected disclosure under section 103A ERA 1996. The tribunal was not satisfied that the claimant had made qualifying protected disclosures or that any dismissal was by reason of such disclosures.
The tribunal found the claim of victimisation by being subjected to detriment by reason of having made a protected disclosure under section 47B ERA 1996 was not well-founded. The claimant failed to establish that they suffered detriment because of protected disclosures.
The tribunal dismissed the victimisation claim under section 27 of the Equality Act 2010. The tribunal was not satisfied that the claimant had done a protected act or was subjected to a detriment because of a protected act.
Facts
The claimant, who represented themselves, brought claims against ASDA Stores Limited alleging constructive dismissal, automatic unfair dismissal for whistleblowing, detriment for making protected disclosures, and victimisation under the Equality Act. The case was heard over five days before a full tribunal panel in Manchester.
Decision
The tribunal dismissed all of the claimant's claims. The tribunal was not satisfied that the claimant had established fundamental breach of contract justifying constructive dismissal, had made qualifying protected disclosures, or had done a protected act leading to victimisation under the Equality Act.
Practical note
Self-represented claimants bringing constructive dismissal and whistleblowing claims against major retailers face significant evidential challenges, particularly in establishing the necessary legal tests for protected disclosures and fundamental breach of contract.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 2403706/2023
- Decision date
- 14 March 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 5
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- retail
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No