Sylvie Mareuge v IKEA Ltd and 2 others — 2026

At a preliminary hearing, Sylvie Mareuge withdrew her religion or belief discrimination claims, which relied on her Christian/Catholic faith. The tribunal dismissed those claims upon withdrawal. She also withdrew her claim against IKEA Limited for damages for breach of the implied term of mutual trust and confidence after discussion of the tribunal's limited contract jurisdiction under Article 4 of the Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction Order (England and Wales) 1994. That claim was also dismissed upon withdrawal, without a ruling on the correctness of the tribunal's jurisdictional view.

The tribunal considered three proposed protected disclosure detriment claims, labelled PD1, PD2 and PD3. Although Mareuge had ticked the whistleblowing box in her ET1 and referred generally to protected disclosures, the tribunal held that none of the three claims had been pleaded. The original claim did not give enough information about the disclosures, the resulting detriments or the claimed causal links to put the respondents on reasonable notice of the essence of each claim. Mareuge therefore needed permission to add three new claims by amendment.

PD1 concerned concerns raised in mid-October 2024 about the lawfulness and handling of a covert recording used in the disciplinary process. For the amendment decision, the tribunal found that the alleged information lacked the specificity required for a qualifying disclosure, arose from an isolated matter personal to Mareuge and disclosed little or no public interest. It also found the alleged causal link weak because the disclosures were made only shortly before her resignation on 15 October 2024. The proposed claim was raised on 5 May 2026, almost a year after the latest time limit calculated by the tribunal. Permission to add PD1 was refused.

PD2 concerned complaints about payment after the store closed on 7 August 2024 and the requirement to work alternative hours. The tribunal found no specific account of the legal obligations said to have been breached and no plausible public-interest element beyond the private interest of Mareuge and affected staff in being paid. Several alleged detriments either predated the alleged disclosure or appeared on their face to arise from the underlying payment decision or Mareuge's late arrival after a car breakdown, rather than from a disclosure. The tribunal also noted that Mareuge was ultimately paid. The proposed claim was at least 15 and a half months late when detailed, and permission to add PD2 was refused.

PD3 concerned communications about workplace practices which Mareuge said were harming her health. The tribunal found that the communications described how she felt and why she thought her treatment at work contributed to that, in a private context. It found no specific information tending to show a matter within section 43B(1), no reasonable public-interest basis and no sufficient basis for linking the alleged detriments to a protected disclosure. The proposed claim was also at least 15 and a half months late, and permission to add PD3 was refused.