Mr Adam Ohringer, of counsel For the v Mr Roy Magara, solicitor UNANIMOUS — 2024

The tribunal accepted that the respondent provided the claimant with accommodation at 100 Commercial Street as part of her recruitment and that the respondent was responsible for keeping the premises usable, including the electricity supply. It found the photographs and messages about the property and power cuts were broadly accurate, and it accepted that repeated loss of electricity could create a risk to health and safety. It also found some of Mrs Chapel-Nkomo's evidence unreliable, but concluded that the claimant could in theory have topped up the meter herself.

The claims under s44(1)(c) and s100(1)(c) ERA 1996 failed. The tribunal held that complaints about the accommodation were not, for these provisions, circumstances connected with the claimant's work because the statutory focus was on what happens at work rather than in accommodation provided for staff. It rejected the alleged 12 May threat to dismiss and revoke the visa, and it also rejected the alleged 31 May remarks that the claimant was careless and would be terminated.

On whistleblowing, the tribunal accepted that the claimant's complaints about the electricity supply could amount to information tending to show a legal obligation and a health and safety issue within s43B ERA 1996. It found, however, that the Facebook publication of the photographs and text by the claimant's sister was not protected under s43G because, in all the circumstances, it was not reasonable to make the disclosure in that way and the claimant should have approached the CQC and probably the Home Office first. The tribunal found the real reason for dismissal was the Facebook posts made by the sister on her own initiative, not the claimant's protected disclosures, so the s47B and s103A claims were dismissed.

The breach of contract claim for the £2,619 pre-employment fee failed because that sum was a prerequisite to the contract coming into existence and was not recoverable as damages for breach. The wrongful dismissal claim succeeded because the tribunal found no fundamental breach or repudiation by the claimant, no concerns about her work performance, and no cogent evidence that she had breached contract by failing to train. It awarded one week's notice pay of £479.45.