Case 1600691/2021 · Employment Tribunal
S Churchill v Whitbread Group plc — 2023
- Case reference
- 1600691/2021
- Decision date
- 24 January 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge T. Vincent Ryan
- Panel members
- Mr P. Bradney, Mr S. Head
Parties
2 namedClaimant
S Churchill
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal recorded that, by the respondent's concession, the claimant was a disabled person by reason of a physical impairment at all material times. It also found that she was a disabled person by reason of a mental impairment from on or around 15 to 22 September 2020 and throughout the material period thereafter.
The claimant's disability-related harassment claim was dismissed. The tribunal also found that the alleged disclosures were not protected disclosures, so the protected disclosure detriment claims failed, and that the claimant had not done a protected act for the purposes of the victimisation claim.
The tribunal held that the claimant's conduct entitled the respondent to dismiss her without notice and that there was no breach of the contractual notice provisions. It found that the dismissal on 4 January 2021 was for a conduct-related reason, not because of protected disclosures, and dismissed the automatically unfair dismissal claim.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Harassment | The judgment states that the harassment claim in relation to disability failed and was dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Whistleblowing | The tribunal held that the claimant's disclosures of information were not protected disclosures, so the protected disclosure detriment claims failed and were dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Victimisation | The judgment states that the claimant did not do a protected act in relation to her victimisation claim, which failed and was dismissed. The protected characteristic is inferred from the disability discrimination context of the judgment. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | The tribunal held that the claimant's conduct entitled the respondent to dismiss her without notice and that the respondent did not breach the contractual notice provisions. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal dismissed the automatically unfair dismissal claim, finding that the claimant was dismissed for a reason related to conduct and not by reason of having made protected disclosures. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.