Claimant v Nuffield Health
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found the complaint of unauthorised deductions from wages was well-founded and that the respondent made an unauthorised deduction from the claimant's wages.
The tribunal found the complaint well-founded, determining that the respondent made an unauthorised deduction from wages by failing to pay the claimant for holidays accrued but not taken on the date employment ended.
The tribunal found the respondent failed to pay the claimant in accordance with regulation 14(2) and/or 16(1) of the Working Time Regulations 1998.
The tribunal found the complaint of unfair dismissal contrary to s98 Employment Rights Act was well-founded and the claimant was unfairly dismissed.
The tribunal found the complaint of unfair dismissal contrary to s103A Employment Rights Act (whistleblowing dismissal) was well-founded and the claimant was unfairly dismissed.
The tribunal found the complaint of being subjected to detriment for making protected disclosures was well-founded and succeeded.
Facts
Miss Littlewood brought claims against Nuffield Health including unfair dismissal, automatic unfair dismissal for whistleblowing, detriment for making protected disclosures, and various wage-related claims including holiday pay and unauthorised deductions. The case was heard over six days in Cardiff in June-July 2025 before a full tribunal panel.
Decision
The tribunal found in favour of the claimant on all claims. The tribunal determined that the claimant was unfairly dismissed both under ordinary unfair dismissal provisions and automatically unfairly dismissed for making protected disclosures. The respondent also subjected the claimant to detriment for whistleblowing and made unauthorised deductions from wages including failure to pay accrued holiday pay. A remedy hearing was ordered to determine compensation.
Practical note
A self-represented whistleblower successfully established automatic unfair dismissal and detriment claims against a major healthcare provider, demonstrating that strong evidence can overcome the disadvantage of lack of representation.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 1600573/2023
- Decision date
- 3 July 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 6
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Name
- Nuffield Health
- Sector
- healthcare
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- solicitor
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No