Claimant v Ocado Central Services Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found that the claimant's dismissal was not automatically unfair under s.103A ERA 1996 (whistleblowing dismissal). The claim was not well founded following a full merits hearing over three days.
The tribunal found that the claimant's dismissal was not automatically unfair under s.100(1)(d) ERA 1996 (dismissal for health and safety reasons). The claim was not well founded following a full merits hearing.
The tribunal found that the claimant did not suffer detriment due to whistleblowing under s.47B ERA 1996. The claim was dismissed as not well founded after considering evidence over three days.
The tribunal found that the claimant did not suffer detriment due to raising health and safety matters under s.44 ERA 1996. The claim was dismissed as not well founded following the full hearing.
Facts
Mr Oake brought claims against Ocado Central Services Limited alleging that he was automatically unfairly dismissed for making protected disclosures (whistleblowing) and for raising health and safety concerns. He also claimed he suffered detriments for the same reasons. The case was heard over three days via CVP at London South tribunal.
Decision
The tribunal dismissed all of Mr Oake's claims, finding that his dismissal was not automatically unfair under whistleblowing or health and safety provisions, and that he had not suffered detriments for those reasons. Oral reasons were given at the hearing.
Practical note
A self-represented claimant failed to establish that his dismissal was automatically unfair due to whistleblowing or health and safety concerns, with all associated detriment claims also dismissed after a three-day hearing.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 2301570/2024
- Decision date
- 7 March 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 3
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- retail
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No