Claimant v Nomad Foods Europe Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found that the protected disclosure relied upon by the claimant was made on 7 January 2025 at 19:16, after she had been notified of dismissal at 15:04 on the same day. The disclosure could not therefore have been the reason for dismissal. The decision to end her contract had been made as early as December 2024. The claimant's application for interim relief therefore had no reasonable prospects of success.
Claim rejected by Regional Employment Judge on 31 January 2025 due to absence of an Early Conciliation Certificate.
Claim rejected by Regional Employment Judge on 31 January 2025 due to absence of an Early Conciliation Certificate.
Claim rejected by Regional Employment Judge on 31 January 2025 due to absence of an Early Conciliation Certificate.
Claim for detriment for making protected disclosures rejected by Regional Employment Judge on 31 January 2025 due to absence of an Early Conciliation Certificate.
Claim rejected by Regional Employment Judge on 31 January 2025 due to absence of an Early Conciliation Certificate.
Claim rejected by Regional Employment Judge on 31 January 2025 due to absence of an Early Conciliation Certificate.
Facts
Miss Messi worked as an Accounts Payable Administrator for Nomad Foods Europe Limited on a fixed-term agency contract from 26 October 2024 to 14 January 2025. She was notified on 7 January 2025 at 15:04 that her contract would not be renewed. Later that same day at 19:16, she sent an email which she relied upon as a protected disclosure. She brought claims including automatic unfair dismissal for whistleblowing and applied for interim relief. Most of her other claims had been struck out for lack of an ACAS early conciliation certificate.
Decision
The tribunal refused the application for interim relief. Employment Judge Warren found it was not likely that the claimant would succeed because the protected disclosure she relied upon was made after she had been notified of dismissal, and therefore could not have been the reason for it. The decision to end her contract had been made as early as December 2024. The judge found the application had no reasonable prospects of success and warned costs may be sought.
Practical note
An interim relief application in a whistleblowing dismissal case will fail if the alleged protected disclosure was made after the dismissal decision had been communicated to the claimant.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 6001465/2025
- Decision date
- 1 August 2025
- Hearing type
- interim relief
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- manufacturing
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- lay rep
Employment details
- Role
- Accounts Payable Administrator
- Service
- 3 months
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No