Case 1405494/2023 · Employment Tribunal
- MR O YAMBA (CASEWORKER) FOR THE v Respondent — 2025
- Case reference
- 1405494/2023
- Decision date
- 23 May 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Livesey
Parties
1 namedClaimant
- MR O YAMBA (CASEWORKER) FOR THE
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal granted the claimant's late amendment application to add a further alleged disclosure said to have been made to the headteacher on or around 14 October 2022. Applying the Selkent and Vaughan approach, it accepted that the respondent had little evidential prejudice because the witness was already before the tribunal and there was contemporaneous documentary material, even though the claimant had not given a strong explanation for the delay.
On the whistleblowing claims, the tribunal held that none of the asserted disclosures amounted to qualifying disclosures within s.43B ERA 1996. It found that the central difficulty was identifying with sufficient certainty what was disclosed, to whom, and when. In many instances the claimant's evidence described the underlying pupil incidents but did not establish any disclosure of information tending to show a breach by the respondent, and reporting disruptive or unsafe pupil behaviour was not enough on its own. The tribunal accepted that one later allegation, concerning a child said to have epilepsy, came closer to the statutory test, but preferred Mr Bell's evidence that the diagnosis and medication had been withdrawn and that no safeguarding issue arose, so the claimant had not proved the disclosure she alleged.
The sex harassment claims were held to be out of time. The tribunal assumed, for the purpose of the decision, that the complaints could form a continuing act, but concluded that they were already out of time when first raised internally and that it was not just and equitable to extend time. It relied in particular on the claimant's conscious decision not to bring the claims earlier while she had union support and after she had already lodged a grievance. The tribunal also ruled that the without prejudice discussions at the 11 April 2023 meeting were inadmissible.
The tribunal did not finally determine the victimisation claims. It noted that the protected acts relied on were accepted and that the alleged detriments were in time, and it gave directions for those remaining claims to proceed to a final hearing.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | The tribunal found the asserted disclosures were not qualifying/protected disclosures under s.43B ERA 1996. It held that in most instances the claimant had not shown what was disclosed to whom and when, and in any event the matters relied on were usually reports of pupil behaviour or requests for assistance rather than disclosures tending to show a breach by the respondent. The late amendment adding the 14 October safeguarding allegation was permitted, but that allegation also failed on the merits. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Harassment | The tribunal held the sex-related harassment complaints were presented out of time and that it was not just and equitable to extend time. It noted the allegations were against Mr Bell and were all said to have occurred between September and November 2022, but were not raised internally until later, despite the claimant having trade union representation and having lodged a grievance in April 2023. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
Legal tests applied
7 references- s.43B ERA 1996
- Kilraine v London Borough of Wandsworth
- Chesterton Global v Nurmohamed
- Selkent Bus Company Ltd v Moore
- Vaughan v Modality Partnership
- Unilever plc v Procter and Gamble Co
- s.123 Equality Act 2010 just and equitable test
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe 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.