Claimant v Nationwide Building Society
Outcome
Individual claims
The Respondent conceded that the dismissal was unfair. The tribunal entered judgment for the Claimant on the unfair dismissal claim at the January 2023 final hearing and found a 90% chance that the Claimant would have been fairly dismissed in any event (Polkey reduction).
The Equality Act claims, including race discrimination, were dismissed following the final hearing in January 2023.
The disability claims were withdrawn by the Claimant prior to final determination.
The Equality Act claims, including victimisation, were dismissed following the final hearing in January 2023.
A claim for notice pay and breach of contract was included in claim form 4 but the judgment does not record the outcome of this specific claim.
A claim for a redundancy payment was included in claim form 4 but the judgment does not record the outcome of this specific claim.
Facts
The Claimant brought multiple claims in 2020 and 2021 including unfair dismissal, race and disability discrimination, and breach of contract against her former employer Nationwide Building Society. She was represented by solicitors and then counsel through the liability hearing in January 2023, which found the dismissal unfair with a 90% Polkey reduction, but dismissed the discrimination claims. Subsequently, the unrepresented Claimant sought repeatedly to introduce whistleblowing issues into the remedy stage, arguing her representative had been negligent and that documents had been withheld. This October 2025 preliminary hearing concerned her applications to strike out the response, join the remedy hearing with new 2025 whistleblowing claims, and for specific disclosure of whistleblowing documents.
Decision
The tribunal dismissed all three applications. It found that whistleblowing was never part of the original claims — none of the claim forms, case management discussions, or agreed issues at the January 2023 final hearing mentioned protected disclosures or automatic unfair dismissal under s.103A ERA 1996. The only outstanding issue was remedy for ordinary unfair dismissal. The tribunal concluded that whistleblowing documents were irrelevant and unnecessary for determining that remedy, that there was no unreasonable conduct or abuse of process by the Respondent, and that joining the claims to the unrelated 2025 proceedings was not in the interests of justice.
Practical note
A claimant cannot retrospectively introduce an entirely new statutory cause of action (whistleblowing) at the remedy stage of a claim that was pleaded and determined as ordinary unfair dismissal, even if alleging representative negligence or non-disclosure.
Adjustments
There was a finding that there was a 90% chance that the Claimant would have been fairly dismissed in any event.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 1402955/2020
- Decision date
- 16 October 2025
- Hearing type
- preliminary
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- financial services
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No