Ms Steluta Artimenco v Kindwell Group Limited — 2026

This combined judgment concerned procedural applications affecting cases 6000207/2026 and 6000459/2026. Regional Employment Judge Foxwell dismissed Ms Artimenco's recusal application, dismissed her application under rule 14 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 to reconsider and reverse the rejection of case 6000459/2026, and refused her request to transfer her claims to the Virtual Region or other specified regions.

Applying the apparent-bias test in Porter v Magill, the judge concluded that a fair-minded and informed observer would not consider the transfer, coordination, stay, listing, postponement or other case-management steps to show a real possibility of bias. The judge also rejected the allegations of actual bias, finding no improper relationship with Peninsula Business Services and holding that the recusal application and complaints to other bodies did not remove his judicial responsibility to decide matters allocated to him.

In case 6000459/2026, the claimant alleged that Kindwell Group Limited operated a platform through which care agencies shared information that prevented her obtaining work. Although her pleading did not identify particular protected disclosures, the tribunal assumed in her favour that whistleblowing disclosures underlay the complaint. It found, however, that she did not allege that she had been an employee or worker of Kindwell and was instead complaining as an applicant for employment or engagement.

The tribunal held, by reference to sections 43K and 103A of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and Sullivan v Isle of Wight, that the Employment Tribunal's whistleblowing jurisdiction does not extend to job applicants in these circumstances. It separately held that regulation 3 of the Employment Relations Act 1999 (Blacklists) Regulations 2010 addresses lists connected with trade union membership or activities and does not create a general Employment Tribunal claim for blacklisting. As the claimant alleged no relevant trade union activity, the tribunal remained satisfied that it lacked jurisdiction and left the rejection of case 6000459/2026 in place.

The compensation figures in the claim form, including the requested total of £200,000 and proposed components of £100,000, £25,000, £45,000 and £30,000, were amounts sought by the claimant and were not awarded. The tribunal expressly stated that case 6000207/2026 had already been accepted and served, remained live, and was not automatically dismissed by this decision; the respondent's strike-out application in that case remained unresolved.