Antony Savva v Leather Inside Out (in liquidation) & Ors

Antony Savva v Leather Inside Out (in liquidation) & Ors

The tribunal erred in failing to determine the third SAR complaint, erred in its legal analysis of protected disclosures 3, 10, and 11, and erred in its approach to the legal basis for SAR refusals; deposit orders in respect of SAR complaints were wrongly made; time points were properly determined at PH; remission is required to a new tribunal for determination of the outstanding issues.

Parties
Appellant: Antony Savva; First Respondent: Leather Inside Out (in liquidation); Second Respondent: Ms V K Johns; Third Respondent: Ms A McKenzie; Fourth Respondent: Ms N M Riedweg
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
07 September 2025
Procedural Posture
Employment Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; deposit order quashed; remission to new tribunal for determination of protected disclosures and SAR complaints.
Legal Topics
Protected Disclosures, Unfair Dismissal, Detrimental Treatment, Time Limits, Series of Similar Acts, Subject Access Requests, Race Discrimination, Sex Discrimination, Harassment, Judicial Proceedings Immunity, Deposit Orders
Employment Law Data Protection Equality Law Protected Disclosures Unfair Dismissal Detrimental Treatment Time Limits Series of Similar Acts +6 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 6 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Antony Savva

Appellant

Leather Inside Out (in liquidation)

First Respondent

Ms V K Johns

Second Respondent

Ms A McKenzie

Third Respondent

Ms N M Riedweg

Fourth Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Appeal / Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether complaints of detrimental treatment for protected disclosures were in time under section 48(3)(a) Employment Rights Act 1996
  2. 2 Whether deposit orders were properly made in respect of SAR complaints
  3. 3 Whether tribunal erred in determining protected disclosures and detriments

Ratio Decidendi

The tribunal erred in failing to determine the third SAR complaint, erred in its legal analysis of protected disclosures 3, 10, and 11, and erred in its approach to the legal basis for SAR refusals; deposit orders in respect of SAR complaints were wrongly made; time points were properly determined at PH; remission is required to a new tribunal for determination of the outstanding issues.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; deposit order quashed; remission to new tribunal for determination of protected disclosures and SAR complaints.

Orders

  • Deposit order relating to SAR complaints quashed.
  • Remission to a different tribunal to determine whether protected disclosures 3, 10, and 11 were made out.