Claimant v Crest Nicholson Operations Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
Claimant alleges she was not offered NVQ Level 6 qualification while male comparators on probation were. Respondent denies policy existed. Factual dispute requires full hearing to determine - tribunal found reasonable prospects of success.
Claimant alleges she was not offered NVQ Level 6 qualification unlike male comparators, potentially due to sexual orientation. Factual dispute requires full hearing - tribunal found reasonable prospects of success.
Claimant alleged five protected disclosures. Two allegations (4.1.1.2 and 4.1.1.5) struck out for detriment claims as they post-dated alleged detriments (October 2023 vs September 2023), but remain live for automatic unfair dismissal claim. One allegation (4.1.1.4) subject to deposit order as having little reasonable prospect due to unclear knowledge chain.
Claimant alleged detriments (being moved to different sites, pressure to complete work) following protected disclosures. Two disclosure allegations struck out as they occurred after the alleged detriments. One subject to deposit order. Remaining allegations proceed to full hearing.
Claimant alleges dismissal for redundancy was due to protected disclosures. All five disclosure allegations remain live for automatic unfair dismissal claim. One allegation (4.1.1.4) subject to deposit order. Case proceeds to full hearing.
Claimant alleges unfair dismissal in context of redundancy selection. No strike out or deposit order made on this claim - proceeds to full hearing.
Facts
Claimant was site assistant manager for property developer from January 2022 to October 2023. She alleges she was not offered NVQ Level 6 qualification unlike male comparators, and was discriminated against on grounds of sex/sexual orientation. She made five alleged protected disclosures between January and October 2023 concerning health and safety matters (being left alone on site, CDM rules compliance, removal of company property). She alleges detriments (being moved between sites under pressure) and that protected disclosures led to her redundancy selection and dismissal. Respondent denies NVQ policy existed and that claimant was reimbursed costs at termination.
Decision
Tribunal allowed sex and sexual orientation discrimination claims to proceed as factual disputes unsuitable for strike out. Two whistleblowing detriment allegations struck out as disclosures post-dated alleged detriments (October vs September 2023). One whistleblowing allegation subject to £200 deposit order for both detriment and automatic unfair dismissal claims due to uncertainty about knowledge chain. All five protected disclosure allegations remain live for automatic unfair dismissal claim.
Practical note
Chronological impossibility is fatal to whistleblowing detriment claims where alleged disclosure occurs after alleged detriment, but factual disputes in discrimination cases will generally survive strike out applications and proceed to full merits hearing.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 1308775/2023
- Decision date
- 23 April 2025
- Hearing type
- preliminary
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- construction
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- site assistant manager
- Service
- 2 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No