Claimant v Sellafield Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found that the claimant failed to establish that she made protected qualifying disclosures. Most alleged disclosures did not occur as claimed, did not amount to disclosures of information with the requisite reasonable belief, or were substantially limited in scope. The claimant failed to properly identify what was said or done on the alleged occasions and failed to establish any causal link between alleged disclosures and any detriment suffered.
The tribunal concluded the claimant failed to establish she had done any protected act. Two alleged protected acts were abandoned late, one was found not to have happened at all, and the remaining allegations did not constitute protected acts. The claimant adduced no evidence of any causal connection between alleged protected acts and any detriment. Against the second respondent specifically, no basic contravention was established and no basis for liability under sections 109, 111, or 112 of the Equality Act 2010 was made out.
Facts
The claimant was an EDI consultant engaged by Sellafield Ltd via her company IDL. She alleged she made protected disclosures about HR issues, discrimination concerns, and an investigation process. The contract was terminated on notice. The claimant brought claims of whistleblowing detriment and victimisation against Sellafield, the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority, and an individual manager. The tribunal heard the substantive claims over 14 days in June/July 2021 and dismissed all claims. This judgment concerns costs applications brought by all respondents.
Decision
The tribunal awarded costs of £40,000 against the claimant (£20,000 to the second respondent and £20,000 to the first and third respondents jointly). The tribunal found the claims had no reasonable prospect of success and the claimant's conduct was unreasonable. The claimant made serious but unfounded allegations of fabricated evidence, failed to properly identify the essential factual elements of her case, made misleading statements, and pursued claims without addressing the legal requirements for establishing liability.
Practical note
A claimant who fails to properly plead and prove the essential elements of whistleblowing and victimisation claims, makes serious allegations later withdrawn, and pursues claims against parties without any proper legal basis for liability faces substantial costs liability even where represented by lawyers at various stages.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 2402530/2019
- Decision date
- 13 June 2024
- Hearing type
- costs
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- procedural
Respondent
- Sector
- energy
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- EDI consultant
Claimant representation
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- solicitor