Cases8001723/2024

Claimant v NHS Lothian

28 February 2025Before Employment Judge D N JonesScotlandon papers

Outcome

Other

Individual claims

Unfair Dismissalnot determined

Original claim brought as unfair dismissal. This is a preliminary hearing on an application to amend; the substantive claim has not yet been heard. Final hearing listed for April 2025.

Automatic Unfair Dismissalnot determined

Application to amend to include automatic unfair dismissal under s.103A ERA 1996 (whistleblowing) was allowed. Tribunal found that while out of time, it was not significantly so, and prejudice to claimant outweighed prejudice to respondent. Substantive claim not yet heard.

Whistleblowingnot determined

Underlying protected disclosure claim relates to claimant reporting inappropriate sexual conduct involving a patient in June 2022. Whether this amounts to a protected disclosure is a legal issue to be determined at final hearing.

Detrimentstruck out

Application to amend to include detriment claim under s.47B ERA refused. Tribunal found significant time bar issues (alleged detriments from June/July 2022, application January 2025), lack of clarity on what specific detriments were alleged, and that allowing amendment would likely require discharge of final hearing.

Facts

The claimant, an Office Manager, resigned on 22 August 2024. She had reported an incident in June 2022 concerning inappropriate sexual conduct involving a patient with serious neurological damage and cognitive impairment. She believed this constituted abuse and reported it to nursing staff and senior management. The claimant brought an unfair dismissal claim in October 2024, and subsequently applied to amend to add automatic unfair dismissal (whistleblowing) and detriment claims. The respondent objected to the amendment.

Decision

This was a preliminary hearing on case management dealt with on the papers. The tribunal allowed the amendment to add an automatic unfair dismissal claim under s.103A ERA 1996, finding that while out of time, it was not significantly so, and the prejudice to the claimant outweighed that to the respondent. The application to add a detriment claim under s.47B was refused due to significant time bar issues and lack of clarity on the specific allegations.

Practical note

Tribunals will apply Selkent principles flexibly in whistleblowing cases, balancing time bar issues against the public interest in protecting whistleblowers, but require clear particularisation of detriment claims to avoid prejudice to respondents.

Legal authorities cited

Selkent Bus Co Ltd v Moore [1996] ICR 836

Statutes

ERA 1996 s.47BERA 1996 s.43AERA 1996 s.103A

Case details

Case number
8001723/2024
Decision date
28 February 2025
Hearing type
preliminary
Hearing days
1
Classification
contested

Respondent

Sector
Represented
Yes
Rep type
solicitor

Employment details

Role
Office Manager

Claimant representation

Represented
Yes
Rep type
lay rep