Case 2401491/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Miss N Murray v Rosehill Day Nursery Limited — 2026
- Case reference
- 2401491/2024
- Decision date
- 30 January 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge McDonald
- Panel members
- Mr G Pennie, Ms S Moores
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss N Murray
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal dismissed the complaints of automatically unfair dismissal by reason of raising health and safety concerns and by reason of whistleblowing. It also dismissed the complaints of detriment for raising health and safety concerns and detriment for making a protected disclosure.
The Tribunal dismissed the complaints of direct disability discrimination and unfavourable treatment because of something arising in consequence of disability. One complaint of failure to make reasonable adjustments for disability succeeded, namely the refusal to stay the appeal proceedings pending written representations; the remaining reasonable adjustments complaint was dismissed. The written judgment records outcomes only and states that reasons were given orally.
Claims and outcomes
8 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Automatically unfair dismissal by reason of raising health and safety concerns under s.100(1)(c) Employment Rights Act 1996 was not well-founded. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | Automatically unfair dismissal by reason of whistleblowing under s.103A ERA was not well-founded. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | Detriment for raising health and safety concerns under s.44(1)(c) ERA was not well-founded and was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | Detriment for making a protected disclosure under s.47B(1) ERA was not well-founded and was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | Direct disability discrimination under s.13 Equality Act 2010 was not well-founded and was dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Unfavourable treatment because of something arising in consequence of disability under s.15 Equality Act 2010 was not well-founded and was dismissed. |
Legal tests applied
7 references- s.100(1)(c) Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.103A ERA
- s.44(1)(c) ERA
- s.47B(1) ERA
- s.13 Equality Act 2010
- s.15 Equality Act 2010
- ss.20-21 Equality Act 2010
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.