Claimant v Prime Electrical Servies Ltd
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal heard evidence over four days and dismissed the complaints. The tribunal found that the claimant was not subjected to detriment as a result of making protected disclosures, indicating the tribunal was not persuaded that the alleged detriments occurred or were causally linked to any protected disclosures made by the claimant.
The tribunal dismissed the automatic unfair dismissal claim. This claim was based on the assertion that the claimant was dismissed for making protected disclosures (whistleblowing). The tribunal was not satisfied that the reason for dismissal, if there was one, was because the claimant made protected disclosures.
The tribunal dismissed the ordinary unfair dismissal claim after hearing evidence over four days. The tribunal must have found either that the claimant was not dismissed, or that any dismissal was fair in accordance with ERA 1996 sections 94-98, applying the band of reasonable responses test to the employer's decision.
The complaint relating to failure to provide written statement of employment particulars was withdrawn by the claimant and dismissed by the tribunal upon that withdrawal.
Facts
Mr Jagger brought claims against Prime Electrical Services Ltd including whistleblowing detriment, automatic unfair dismissal for making protected disclosures, and ordinary unfair dismissal. The case was heard over four days in December 2025 before Employment Judge Akhtar sitting alone. Both parties were represented by non-legal representatives. The claimant also brought a claim for failure to provide written particulars of employment which was withdrawn during the hearing.
Decision
The tribunal dismissed all of the claimant's claims after a four-day hearing. The tribunal found that the claimant had not been subjected to detriment for making protected disclosures, had not been automatically unfairly dismissed for whistleblowing, and had not been unfairly dismissed. The claim regarding failure to provide written particulars was dismissed upon the claimant's withdrawal.
Practical note
Whistleblowing claims require clear evidence that protected disclosures were made and that any subsequent detriment or dismissal was causally linked to those disclosures, with the burden on the claimant to establish both elements.
Case details
- Case number
- 1307592/2024
- Decision date
- 18 December 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 4
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- construction
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- lay rep
Claimant representation
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- lay rep