Claimant v Curam Domi Solutions Limited

The tribunal found that the decision to dismiss was made on 8 August 2022, before most of the protected disclosures. The principal and only reason for dismissal was the respondent's genuine conclusion that the claimant had failed his probation period. The tribunal accepted the director's evidence that the dismissal was due to performance concerns, not the protected disclosures made on 8, 10, or 16 August.

The claimant alleged the detriment was the fabrication of a performance/capability case against him. The tribunal found no such fabrication occurred. The performance management concerns were genuine, held by managers before any protected disclosure was made, and predated the first alleged disclosure by weeks. The tribunal found the PMP was reasonable and not a sham.

The claimant accepted he was paid in lieu of notice. As he received payment in lieu, there were no damages due for wrongful dismissal. The tribunal confirmed the respondent made no allegation of gross misconduct.

The tribunal found the claimant had no contractual entitlement to any of the seven sums claimed (totalling £25,904.32). These included claims for: (i) £4,000 allegedly deducted for training (but the contract specified salary as £36,000 with no deduction); (ii) £9,999.99 for three months' salary as RM (but claimant was not formally the RM and continued on his home manager contract); (iii) overtime claims (but the signing-in books did not support overtime-only records, and a payment of 150 hours in May 2022 was found adequate for any genuine overtime); and (iv) expenses claims unsupported by contract.

The tribunal considered the same seven sums claimed as unauthorised deductions, but also as breaches of contract outstanding at dismissal. The tribunal found no contractual entitlement to any amounts: the contract stated salary clearly as £36,000, made no provision for overtime payment (except in limited authorised circumstances which were not met), and contained no provision for reimbursement of expenses or training fees.

The tribunal found that letters of 30 and 31 July 2022 were not protected disclosures because they concerned only the claimant's private interests (money owed to him personally, grievances about his line manager) and the claimant did not reasonably believe disclosure was in the public interest. However, the emails of 8, 10, and 16 August were protected disclosures (concerning understaffing and child safety). Nevertheless, the dismissal decision was made on 8 August before most disclosures, and the reason was the claimant's failed probation, not the disclosures.