Claimant v Medical Services International Limited

The tribunal found the claimant failed to prove she made any of the claimed protected disclosures on 14/12/2023, 2-4/1/2024, or mid-April 2024. There was no contemporary documentary evidence despite the claimant's professional work environment and regular written communications. The tribunal found alleged disclosures inconsistent with contemporaneous positive messages sent by the claimant.

The tribunal found the alleged detriments (pressure to work during sick leave, pressure to attend bowling event, comment about left-handedness, failure to provide reasonable adjustments) were either not proven to have occurred or were not causally linked to any protected disclosure, as no protected disclosures were established.

The tribunal found that the dismissal reason was not the making of protected disclosures but rather the legitimate performance and conduct concerns set out in the dismissal letter, including unsatisfactory handover, lack of professionalism with consultants, and sharing personal information without consent. No protected disclosures were established.

The tribunal found the alleged harassment related only to cycling accident injuries which were not a disability at the relevant time. In any event, the disclosures about the accident by managers were made for reasonable business purposes after the claimant had voluntarily disclosed the details to colleagues, and did not have the purpose or effect of violating dignity.

The tribunal found that none of the alleged PCPs (not permitting home working, pressure to attend office, no dedicated workstation/locker) qualified as valid PCPs under Ishola/Nottingham as they described only alleged treatment of the claimant without general application. The claimant was disabled by mental health conditions but the respondent reasonably believed these were managed by weekly CBT only. The claimant was not disabled by foot problems or cycling injuries at the relevant time.