Claimant v Nomad Health Technologies Ltd

The tribunal found the respondents failed to provide a credible explanation for not submitting a defence, and the claimant's evidence suggested her redundancy occurred shortly after protected disclosures while she was in advanced discussions for a new role. The respondents provided no dates of when redundancy decisions affecting the claimant were taken, making their defence on redundancy reason weak.

The respondent accepted at least one protected disclosure was made. The tribunal found the respondents' defences to the protected disclosure allegations (that disclosures were only part of her role, or expressions of opinion, or matters resolved shortly after) did not ring true. The claimant appeared likely to succeed in showing she made qualifying protected disclosures to her employer.

The claimant alleged she suffered detriments as a consequence of making protected disclosures and health and safety disclosures. Given the tribunal found the protected disclosures were likely made and the timing of her redundancy, the detriment claims succeeded by default as the respondents were unable to defend.

The claimant alleged dismissal as a consequence of protected disclosures. The tribunal noted the respondent would find it difficult to prove her disclosures played no part in the redundancy decision, particularly given the timing and lack of detail about when redundancy decisions were made.

The tribunal concluded it could not determine from the papers and discussion whether the disability discrimination claims were made out as required by Rule 22. These claims required further evidence and would proceed to a remedy hearing for determination.

The tribunal could not conclude from the papers that direct discrimination claims were made out as required by Rule 22. These required further evidence and would proceed to a remedy hearing.

The claim alleged sex discrimination. As the respondents were refused permission to submit a defence out of time and a default judgment was effectively entered, this claim succeeded.

The claim alleged sexual orientation discrimination. As the respondents were refused permission to submit a defence out of time and a default judgment was effectively entered, this claim succeeded.

The claim alleged victimisation. As the respondents were refused permission to submit a defence out of time and a default judgment was effectively entered, this claim succeeded.