Ms P Chapman v Pearlcare (Sandford) Ltd and 2 others — 2022

The tribunal refused the claimant's application to admit late-disclosed documents in the interests of justice. It found that she had made protected disclosures to the first respondent about resident safety, in the sense that she held a reasonable and genuine belief that residents' health and safety at the care home had been, was being and was likely to be endangered.

The tribunal held that the claims were presented out of time, save for the dismissal claim, and that it had no jurisdiction to hear them. It also recorded that all claims against the third respondent were withdrawn, together with the direct sex discrimination and harassment claims based on the allegations about a default requirement to use a designated changing area and inadequate changing facilities for women.

In the alternative, the tribunal dismissed the Public Interest Disclosure detriment claim said to involve being shunned, ignored and branded a troublemaker, and dismissed the sex discrimination and harassment claims based on the alleged misuse of a CCTV camera. The claimant's automatic unfair dismissal claim also failed; the tribunal found that she was dismissed on 31 March 2021 for a reason related to conduct, rather than because she made protected disclosures.