Claimant v The Hamptons Hospital Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
Default judgment under Rule 21 as respondent failed to present a valid response in time. Response received out of time on 7 December 2025 without application for extension. Tribunal determined claim could properly be decided without a response.
Default judgment under Rule 21 as respondent failed to present a valid response in time. Complaint of detriment for having made Protected Disclosures succeeded on the papers without a defended hearing.
Claim failed because it was not immediately apparent from the Grounds of Claim what was alleged to be the Protected Act. The grievances as pleaded did not appear to complain of discrimination as required for a victimisation claim under section 27 Equality Act 2010.
Facts
Mrs Brown was employed by The Hamptons Hospital Limited. She brought claims of unfair dismissal, whistleblowing detriment and victimisation. The respondents failed to submit a response by the deadline of 6 December 2024. A late response was received on 7 December 2025 without an application for extension of time. The tribunal proceeded to determine the claims on the papers under Rule 21.
Decision
The tribunal found in favour of the claimant on the unfair dismissal and whistleblowing claims by default judgment. The victimisation claim failed as the pleadings did not adequately identify a protected act - the grievances did not appear to complain of discrimination. Remedy will be determined at a separate hearing.
Practical note
In Rule 21 default judgments, tribunals will still scrutinise whether discrimination claims are properly pleaded, even where respondents have not defended the case.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 6011652/2024
- Decision date
- 3 March 2025
- Hearing type
- rule 21
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- default
Respondent
- Sector
- healthcare
- Represented
- No
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No