Case 1601290/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Ms. S McCallion v Llysywaun Ltd. — 2023
- Case reference
- 1601290/2022
- Decision date
- 10 May 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge T. Vincent Ryan
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms. S McCallion
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge T. Vincent Ryan issued a liability judgment under Rule 21 in Ms S McCallion's claim against Llysywaun Ltd. The judgment recorded that she made protected disclosures between 17 April 2021 and 3 May 2022 about food hygiene at Bay View Nursing Home, staff smoking on the premises, a staff member's conduct towards a service user, and the safeguarding of a vulnerable adult resident, and that she also made a disclosure to Care Inspectorate Wales on 18 September 2021.
The tribunal found that the respondent subjected the claimant to detriment, described as acts of setting her up to fail, on numerous occasions between 17 April 2021 and 3 May 2022 because of those disclosures. It also found that she was unfairly dismissed on 3 May 2022 by reason, or if more than one reason by the principal reason, of having made the protected disclosures.
The judgment did not assess compensation. It recorded that the sum payable to the claimant would be assessed at a later remedy hearing.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | Liability judgment under Rule 21. The judgment recorded protected disclosures and a detriment claim based on those disclosures; compensation was left to a later remedy hearing. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found that the claimant was dismissed on 3 May 2022 by reason, or if more than one reason by the principal reason, of making the protected disclosures. Remedy was deferred to a later hearing. | Upheld | — | — |
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.