Case 1808806/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Ms K Steele Second Claimant : Ms C Hastie v Comfort Homecare Ltd Trading as Nestora Home Care 14 November 2024 — 2024
- Case reference
- 1808806/2024
- Decision date
- 14 November 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Shepherd Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms K Steele Second Claimant : Ms C Hastie
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimants applied for interim relief on the basis that they had been dismissed by reason of making a protected disclosure under section 103A of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The tribunal considered the claim form, documents and submissions from both sides, and noted that the interim relief decision required a broad summary assessment on untested material rather than findings of fact.
The tribunal applied the test of whether the claimants had a pretty good chance of establishing at a full hearing that the reason, or principal reason, for dismissal was that they had made a protected disclosure. It found that the material before it did not allow that conclusion, and that disputed factual issues would need to be determined at the full hearing. The applications for interim relief were refused.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | The judgment refused the claimants' applications for interim relief on a section 103A protected disclosure dismissal complaint; it did not determine the substantive complaint. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- section 103A Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 128 Employment Rights Act 1996
- pretty good chance of success
- Taplin v C Shipham Ltd 1978 ICR 1068
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.