Claimant v Sonder Hospitality UK Ltd
Outcome
Individual claims
The claimant had less than 6 months' service and her claim did not disclose any of the reasons for automatic unfair dismissal. She voluntarily agreed to withdraw the claim at a case management hearing. The tribunal refused her subsequent reconsideration application because her case did not fall within sections 100 or 103A ERA 1996 and allowing a whistleblowing claim would constitute a significant amendment and expansion of her case.
This claim remains ongoing and was not the subject of this reconsideration judgment. The tribunal noted the claimant could still challenge her dismissal as a discriminatory act within this remaining claim.
This claim remains ongoing and was not the subject of this reconsideration judgment.
This claim remains ongoing and was not the subject of this reconsideration judgment.
Facts
The claimant was dismissed after less than 6 months' service with Sonder Hospitality UK Ltd. She brought claims of unfair dismissal, direct discrimination, harassment and victimisation. At a case management hearing, the unrepresented claimant agreed to withdraw her unfair dismissal claim after the judge explained she lacked the qualifying service and her case did not fall within automatic unfair dismissal exceptions. She subsequently applied for reconsideration, arguing her dismissal was for health and safety reasons or protected disclosures.
Decision
The tribunal refused the reconsideration application. The judge found that the claimant's case did not fall within section 100 ERA 1996 (health and safety) as it did not meet the tightly drawn statutory requirements. Although the claimant mentioned complaints about unsafe practices, her original claim was clearly based on discrimination not whistleblowing, and allowing a protected disclosure claim would constitute a significant amendment and expansion of her case.
Practical note
Unrepresented claimants who voluntarily withdraw claims may struggle to reverse that decision on reconsideration, particularly where the new basis would constitute a material amendment rather than clarification of the original pleaded case.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 6015939/2024
- Decision date
- 27 September 2025
- Hearing type
- reconsideration
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- procedural
Respondent
- Sector
- hospitality
- Represented
- Yes
Employment details
- Service
- 5 months
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No