L Jordan v 0970003 Ltd (in Creditors Voluntary Liquidation): 6019128/2025
JUDGMENT
[1]The name of the respondent is amended to 0970003 Ltd (in Creditors Voluntary Liquidation).[2]The claimant was unfairly dismissed by the respondent.[3]The respondent is ordered to pay to the claimant a compensatory award of £4,650.REASONS
[1]The claimant submitted his claim on 22 May 2025 following a period of Early Conciliation that started on 5 May 2025 and ended on 12 May 2025. In the claim form the claimant says that he was employed by the respondent as a Static Security Officer from 20 November 2024 until 28 April 2025. He indicated that he wishes to bring a claim of unfair dismissal and refers to breaches of health and safety by the respondent by not providing water and cleaning equipment. He asserts that he was dismissed for complaining about water and cleaning products. 1 of 5[2]The claim was served on the respondent at the following address: 74-76 Beaumont House, Church Road, Stockton on Tees, TS18 1TW. The deadline for filing a response was 25 June 2025. On 24 June a response was filed on behalf of a company by the name of 0970003 Ltd. The response stated that the respondent wanted to defend the claim and that the respondent was in liquidation as of 8th May 2025.[3]The case was originally listed for a Preliminary Hearing for Case Management on 28 July 2025. That hearing was postponed by the Tribunal.[4]By letter dated 13 November 2025 the case was listed for a final hearing today and Case Management Orders were made. There was no evidence before the Tribunal to suggest that any of those Orders have been complied with.[5]A search of the Companies House website reveals the existence of a company called 0970003 Ltd with company number 09770003. The company was previously known as Next Level Security Services Ltd and changed its name to 0970003 Ltd on 8 April 2025. It went into voluntary liquidation on 8 May 2025. The company currently has no directors or other officers. The registered office of the company was previously Beaumont House, 74-76 Church Road, Stocktonon-Tees TS18 1TW.[6]On 11 May 2026 the liquidator, Rikki Burton of Anderson Brookes Insolvency Practitioners Ltd, filed a report at Companies House which includes the following: “There have been insufficient realisations in the liquidation to make a distribution to any class of creditor to date. It is unlikely that there will be a distribution to creditors.” Today’s hearing[7]The respondent did not attend the hearing and was not represented. The hearing was due to start at 10am. The claimant was not present. A member of Tribunal staff telephoned the claimant four times and on the fourth occasion the claimant answered the telephone. He told the clerk that he had just woken up, having worked a late shift last night, and had forgotten about the hearing. The clerk asked him to dial into the hearing and the claimant joined at 10.20.[8]I heard evidence from the claimant under oath. I did not have any documents before me other than the Tribunal form, and in particular the claim form. The claimant referred to other documents but was not able to access them on his phone.Findings of fact
[9]I make the following findings of fact on the basis of the oral evidence of the claimant, which was unchallenged, the claim form and the response form. 2 of 5[10]The claimant was employed by the respondent as a Static Security Officer from 20 November 2024 until 28 April 2025 when he was dismissed. He earned £1,550 net a month. At the time of his employment the name of the company was Next Level Security Services Ltd. The company has since changed its name to 0970003 Ltd.[11]The claimant’s line manager was called Jordan. The claimant worked on a site at Pindar House, Thornburgh Road, Eastfield in Scarborough which was an old, condemned warehouse that was being modernised. There were several contractors working on that site, including the respondent. There was no running drinking water on site.[12]The other contractors working on site provided bottled water for their staff. The respondent did not do so. The claimant approached his manager and asked for water to be provided so that the staff could have drinks whilst at work. The claimant believed that the lack of clean drinking water was a health and safety issue and unhygienic.[13]The respondent did not have a health and safety representative on site and there was no evidence of a health and safety committee. The claimant therefore raised his concerns directly to his manager, Jordan.[14]After raising his concerns the claimant was informed that he was being dismissed and that he had taken the water issue out of proportion. He has seen other people leave for similar reasons.[15]The claimant was out of work for three months after his dismissal and was then able to find alternative employment.The Law
[16]Section 94 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 states that “an employee has the right not be unfairly dismissed by his employer”.[17]Section 100 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 provides that: “(1) An employee who is dismissed shall be regarded for the purposes of this Part as unfairly dismissed if the reason (or, if more than one, the principal reason) for the dismissal is that – …. (c ) being an employee at a place where -(i) there was no such representative or safety committee, or(ii) there was such a representative or safety committee but it was not reasonably practicable for the employee to raise the matter by those means, he brought to his employer’s attention, by reasonable means, circumstances connected with his work which he reasonably believed were harmful or potentially harmful to health or safety…”[18]Section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 provides that: 3 of 5 “(1) Section 94 does not apply to the dismissal of an employee unless he has been continuously employed for a period of not less than two years ending with the effective date of termination. …. (3) Subsection (1) does not apply if – …. (c) subsection (1) of section 100 (read with subsections (2) and (3) of that section) applies”.[19]Section 123 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 contains the power to make a compensatory award where an employee has been unfairly dismissed and provides as follows: “(1) …the amount of the compensatory award shall be such amount as the tribunal considers just and equitable in all the circumstances having regard to the loss sustained by the complainant in consequence of the dismissal in so far as that loss is attributable to action taken by the employer…”Conclusions
[20]I am satisfied on the evidence before me that the claimant raised concerns at work, in particular about the lack of clean drinking water on site and his employer’s failure to provide clean drinking water on site. I am also satisfied that the claimant reasonably believed that the lack of drinking water was potentially harmful to the health and safety of those working on site.[21]I find that the claimant was dismissed because he raised those concerns, and that the principal reason for his dismissal falls within section 100(1)(c) of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The claimant does not need 2 years’ service in order to pursue this complaint.[22]The claim for unfair dismissal is well founded and succeeds.[23]The claimant told the Tribunal that he is not seeking reinstatement or reengagement by the respondent. He has found alternative employment.[24]He was out of work for 3 months after he was dismissed by the respondent and claims 3 months’ loss of earnings. His net monthly earnings were £1,550 a month, and I make a compensatory award of £4,650. The respondent is ordered to pay £4,650 to the claimant by way of compensation for unfair dismissal. Approved by: