Carrie Ovens v St Stephens Pre School CIC — 2026

The claimant was employed as operations manager from 3 January 2024 until she resigned on 17 January 2025. The respondent did not attend the hearing or submit an ET3, and the tribunal proceeded in its absence under Rule 47. The tribunal accepted the claimant's uncontested evidence, supported by witness and documentary evidence, that she reported concerns to Ofsted, the LADO and the ICO on 9 January 2025 about unauthorised access to safeguarding software and confidential child data, misuse of CCTV, and discussion of confidential safeguarding information with non-employees.

The tribunal found that each of the three disclosures contained specific information, was made in the claimant's reasonable belief in the public interest, and tended to show breach of legal obligations including data protection and safeguarding obligations. It found the disclosures to Ofsted and the ICO were to prescribed persons, and accepted the disclosure to the LADO as a disclosure to the Local Authority on a purposive approach. The protected disclosure detriment claim succeeded in relation to detriments including delayed restoration of work email access, exclusion from a staff WhatsApp group and workplace decision-making, accusations made outside Mrs Kirton's home, Mr Carter later denying agreement to an action in the claimant's risk assessment, and failure to acknowledge the resignation.

The constructive automatic unfair dismissal claim succeeded. The tribunal accepted that the claimant resigned in response to the detriments caused by her protected disclosures, with the incident at Mrs Kirton's house on 15 January 2025 acting as the trigger. It found that incident was a repudiatory breach and that the detriments, viewed cumulatively, also amounted to a repudiatory breach because the claimant was being excluded and placed in a position where she could not fulfil her role.

The harassment claim relating to disability also succeeded. The tribunal accepted the claimant's and Mrs Kirton's evidence that Ms Bissell repeatedly made references to the claimant's ADHD, including calling her 'ADHD' and making comments about mistakes and medication, and that the claimant had asked her to stop. The tribunal found this was unwanted conduct related to disability and that it had the purpose or effect of violating the claimant's dignity or creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment.

The notice pay claim succeeded. The claimant was paid £1,550 per month in two instalments, and the tribunal accepted that a notice period ending at the next school holiday was reasonable for an operations manager of a pre-school following school term times. It found she was entitled to notice pay up to 28 February 2025. The tribunal also found that the claimant had not been given written particulars of employment despite asking for a written contract, and held that she was entitled to an award for that failure, but the judgment does not state quantified remedy figures.