Case 1400877/2020 · Employment Tribunal

- MR S VENTOM (COUNSEL) FOR THE v - Mr a Humphreys (the Appellant’S Manager) — 2021

Case reference: 1400877/2020
Decision date: 20 July 2021
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Cadney Date

Indexed: 23 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

- MR S VENTOM (COUNSEL) FOR THE

Respondent

- Mr a Humphreys (the Appellant’S Manager)

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

Melville Hall Hotel Ltd appealed three prohibition notices served by the Isle of Wight Council Environmental Health Service in respect of the hotel’s indoor spa pool/hot tub, indoor swimming pool and outdoor hot tub. The appeal against PN20-00004 was not pursued, and the tribunal recorded that the notice was affirmed on withdrawal of the appeal. The tribunal also said it would have affirmed that notice in any event.

The tribunal accepted that Public Health England had informed the inspector on 22 January 2020 that a recent hotel guest had been admitted to intensive care and confirmed as having Legionnaires’ disease. Water samples from the indoor spa pool/hot tub then tested positive for Legionella serogroup 1, and on 7 February 2020 Public Health England confirmed a match between the patient isolate ST27 and the spa pool/hot tub. The tribunal rejected the appellant’s allegation that Mr Fentum was biased or involved in a campaign against the hotel, describing him as truthful and reliable.

Applying the Chevron approach, the tribunal asked whether a risk of serious personal injury existed when each notice was served. It held that PN20-00007 was clearly justified because the indoor swimming pool had positive legionella results and the voluntary prohibition had not prevented the pool being used. The tribunal also accepted later evidence, including information obtained after service, so far as it shed light on the risk at the relevant time.

PN20-00008 was described as the more finely balanced notice, but it was still affirmed. The tribunal found there was no direct evidence linking the outdoor hot tub to the indoor systems, but held that the appellant had not shown a safe system for minimising legionella risk in the hot tub, and that the hotel’s inability to operate the indoor facilities safely supported the inspector’s view that the outdoor hot tub also involved a serious risk of personal injury.

Claims and outcomes

3 findings recorded

This case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Other	Appeal against prohibition notice PN20-00004 was not pursued; the tribunal recorded that the notice was affirmed on withdrawal of the appeal and said it would have affirmed it in any event.	Withdrawn	—	—
Other	Appeal against prohibition notice PN20-00007 was affirmed. The tribunal found positive legionella results, evidence that the voluntary prohibition on the indoor swimming pool had not been effective, and no basis to conclude there was no serious risk of personal injury when the notice was served. The final order section appears to repeat PN20-00004, but the reasons clearly identify PN20-00007.	Dismissed	—	—
Other	Appeal against prohibition notice PN20-00008 was affirmed. The tribunal accepted that this was the more finely balanced notice but held that the outdoor hot tub posed a serious risk of personal injury because the appellant had not demonstrated a safe system for minimising legionella risk and had shown inability to manage the other water facilities safely. The final order section appears to repeat PN20-00004, but the reasons clearly identify PN20-00008.	Dismissed	—	—

Legal tests applied

5 references

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.

Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.

How we got this data

Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.

Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.