Claimant v The Governing Body of Our Lady of Lourdes Catholic Primary School

The tribunal found that none of the alleged disclosures were qualifying protected disclosures within s.43B ERA 1996. The claimant failed to establish that she disclosed information (rather than simply reporting incidents), and critically, the disclosures did not tend to show a breach of legal obligation by the respondent. Reporting pupil misbehaviour without alleging the school had breached its safeguarding or other legal duties was insufficient.

Claims of public interest disclosure detriment under s.47B ERA 1996 dismissed because the tribunal found no qualifying protected disclosures had been made. Without establishing protected disclosures, the detriment claims could not succeed.

All harassment related to sex claims occurred between September and November 2022, making them out of time even if considered a continuing act. The claimant, while represented by a trade union and aware of time limits, made a conscious choice not to bring the claims until months later. The tribunal found it was not just and equitable to extend time, particularly given the deliberate choice to delay and the prejudice to the respondent in defending stale allegations without contemporaneous complaint.

Two victimisation claims under s.27 Equality Act 2010 relating to delays in acknowledging and hearing an appeal were found to be in time and to proceed to final hearing. The respondent's application for a deposit order was refused as the tribunal found the claims were not susceptible to such an order without hearing evidence.