Claimant v Gate Gourmet
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found that the complaint of being subjected to detriment for making a protected disclosure was well-founded. The respondent did not appear to defend the claim, and the tribunal was satisfied on the evidence presented that the claimant had made a qualifying disclosure and suffered detriment as a result. Judgment was given under Rule 22 due to the respondent's non-participation.
Facts
The claimant, Mr Shane Farrell, brought a whistleblowing claim against his employer Gate Gourmet, alleging he was subjected to detriment for making a protected disclosure. The respondent failed to participate in the proceedings and did not appear at the hearing held remotely via CVP.
Decision
The tribunal found in favour of the claimant under Rule 22, determining that the complaint of detriment for making a protected disclosure was well-founded and succeeded. The respondent's failure to appear meant the claim was essentially uncontested.
Practical note
A default judgment may be entered in whistleblowing claims where the respondent fails to participate, provided the tribunal is satisfied on the evidence that the claim has merit.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 2401441/2024
- Decision date
- 22 October 2025
- Hearing type
- default judgment
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- default
Respondent
- Name
- Gate Gourmet
- Sector
- hospitality
- Represented
- No
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No