Care worker dismissed after raising concerns wins automatic unfair dismissal claim
A care worker who was dismissed after making a protected disclosure has won her automatic unfair dismissal claim after her employer failed to respond to the tribunal claim on time. She was awarded £15,722.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as a care worker from 10 October 2019 until 1 April 2022.
- The respondent failed to submit a response to the claim within the time limit.
- The respondent's application for an extension of time to submit the ET3 was refused.
- The claimant made a protected disclosure which led to her dismissal.
- The claimant earned £251.20 from agency work after dismissal and received universal credit.
- The claimant became a part-time student in February 2023.
Timeline
-
Employment started
Claimant began working as a care worker for Enlightenment Care Services.
-
Last day of work
Claimant last worked for the respondent, after which she was dismissed.
-
ET1 claim submitted
Claimant submitted her claim to the employment tribunal.
-
Claim sent to respondent
Tribunal sent the claim to the respondent, with a response deadline of 29 June 2022.
-
ACAS contact
ACAS informed respondent's Head of Operations of the response deadline.
-
Response deadline
Deadline for respondent to submit ET3 form; no response was filed.
-
Tribunal letter to claimant
Tribunal requested information on remedy and listed a remedy hearing.
-
Respondent's late application
Respondent applied for an extension of time to submit ET3.
-
Remedy hearing
Hearing held at Cambridge Employment Tribunal; respondent's extension refused; unfair dismissal judgment made; remedy awarded.
-
Judgment sent
Reserved judgment with reasons sent to parties.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant was automatically unfairly dismissed because she made a protected disclosure, and what compensation she should receive.
The outcome
The tribunal ruled in favour of the claimant, finding that her dismissal was automatically unfair due to the protected disclosure. The respondent failed to submit a response to the claim within the time limit, and their application for an extension was refused.
Compensation awarded:
- Basic award: £483.86
- Compensatory award: £15,238.50
- Total: £15,722.36
The recoupment provisions apply to the compensatory award.
Lessons & takeaways
- If you are dismissed for raising a genuine public interest concern, you may have a claim for automatic unfair dismissal regardless of your length of service.
- Employers must respond to tribunal claims within the deadline; failing to do so can result in a default judgment against them.
- Keep evidence of any protected disclosures you make, such as emails or witness statements, to support your claim.
- Even if you have limited earnings after dismissal, you may still be entitled to compensation, but any benefits received will be deducted.
- Seeking legal advice early can help you understand the strength of your case and the evidence needed.
This case highlights the importance of responding to tribunal claims promptly. The care worker, who had two years' service, was dismissed after raising concerns about care practices. Her employer, Enlightenment Care Services, failed to file a response within the 28-day deadline, leading to a default judgment under Rule 21.
What the employer did wrong
The employer's explanation for the delay was that they had moved offices and overlooked the claim. However, the tribunal noted that they were aware of the claim in June 2022, yet waited until April 2023 to apply for an extension. The judge found this explanation unsatisfactory, especially given the serious nature of the claim.
Why the result matters
This case shows that tribunals will not tolerate delays in responding to claims, particularly where the claimant has a strong case. The automatic unfair dismissal finding means the claimant did not need to prove the dismissal was unreasonable; the protected disclosure was enough. The compensation of £15,722 reflects her lost earnings and benefits, with adjustments for post-dismissal income and universal credit.
For employees considering a similar claim, the key takeaway is that raising genuine concerns about public interest issues can protect you from unfair dismissal, even with short service. For employers, it is a reminder to take all tribunal correspondence seriously and respond on time.
Similar cases
Whistleblowing dismissal: two employees win automatic unfair dismissal claims
Two former employees of Bridge Medical Solutions Ltd have won their claims for automatic unfair dismissal after being sacked for making protected disclosures. The tribunal awarded a total of £27,286 in compensation.
Whistleblowing sign erector wins unfair dismissal claim against First Signs Ltd
A sign erector with only 7 months' service was automatically unfairly dismissed after raising road safety concerns about unroadworthy vehicles. The tribunal awarded £9,858.56.
Default judgment revoked after employer filed response on time but it wasn't processed
A default judgment of £23,238.49 was set aside because the employer had actually submitted its response by the extended deadline, even though the tribunal had not processed it before issuing judgment.
Dismissed without a disciplinary hearing: procedural unfairness costs employer £9,500
A former employee with two years' service was unfairly dismissed after being suspended and then sacked without any disciplinary hearing. The Cambridge tribunal awarded £9,546.81 in compensation.