Claimant v HCA International Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
This was an interim relief application only. The tribunal refused the application, finding the claimant did not have a 'pretty good chance' of success in establishing that the reason or principal reason for dismissal was the protected disclosure. The tribunal noted a genuine redundancy process was documented, the restructure pre-dated the disclosure, and the claimant's factual assertions were disputed and not strongly supported by available documents.
The underlying whistleblowing claim (automatic unfair dismissal under s.103A ERA) remains to be determined at a full merits hearing. The interim relief application was refused because the tribunal was not satisfied the claimant had a pretty good chance of proving the dismissal was because of the protected disclosure.
Claim brought but not determined at this interim relief hearing.
Claim brought but not the subject of this interim relief hearing and remains to be determined.
Whistleblowing detriment claims brought but not the subject of this interim relief hearing and remain to be determined.
Claim brought but not the subject of this interim relief hearing and remains to be determined.
Notice pay claim brought but not the subject of this interim relief hearing and remains to be determined.
Claim brought but not the subject of this interim relief hearing and remains to be determined.
Arrears of pay and other payments claimed but not the subject of this interim relief hearing and remain to be determined.
Possible victimisation claim or amendment application noted by the tribunal but not yet formally determined or subject of this hearing.
Facts
The claimant, a Senior Business Operations Manager employed since May 2022, alleged she made protected disclosures in March and October 2024 regarding NHS overcharging and patient prioritisation. She was placed at risk of redundancy in August 2024 as part of a restructure disbanding the non-clinical flex pool, and dismissed by reason of redundancy in May 2025 with 12 weeks' notice ending 6 August 2025. The claimant contended she had been given a substantive role outside the flex pool and was wrongly included in the redundancy pool, and that her dismissal was because of her whistleblowing.
Decision
The tribunal refused the claimant's application for interim relief, finding she did not have a 'pretty good chance' of establishing that the reason or principal reason for dismissal was her protected disclosure. The tribunal noted a documented redundancy process existed, the restructure pre-dated the alleged disclosure, and the respondent had arguable answers to each of the claimant's points. The tribunal found insufficient evidence on the available documents to infer the dismissal was connected to whistleblowing.
Practical note
Interim relief applications in whistleblowing dismissals require near-certain prospects of success on causation, and will fail where a genuine redundancy process is documented and pre-dates the disclosure, even if procedural fairness issues are raised.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 6019063/2025
- Decision date
- 23 July 2025
- Hearing type
- interim relief
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- healthcare
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- Senior Business Operations Manager
- Service
- 3 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister