Live-in governor dismissed after raising lobster-cutting safety concern: automatic unfair dismissal claim fails
A live-in governor who injured his wrist cutting lobsters and was dismissed days after raising health and safety concerns lost his automatic unfair dismissal claim because the employer was unaware of the complaint. The tribunal did, however, order the employer to provide an amended contract reflecting a promise to pay healthcare costs.
2 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #live-in-governor
- #covid-19-bubble
- #lobster-injury
- #health-and-safety-raise
- #wrist-surgery
- #healthcare-costs-agreement
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as a live-in Governor/Tutor from 1 October 2020.
- The respondent required staff to follow a strict Covid-19 bubble, restricting movement beyond the Wentworth Estate.
- On 25 February 2021, the claimant injured his wrist while cutting lobsters at the respondent's request.
- The claimant raised health and safety concerns about lack of training with the house manager on 1 July 2021.
- The respondent dismissed the claimant on 5 July 2021, citing loss of trust and confidence.
- The tribunal found the respondent had agreed to pay healthcare costs during the bubble, but the claimant's automatic unfair dismissal claim failed because the respondent was unaware of the health and safety raise.
Timeline
-
Employment commenced
Claimant started as live-in Governor/Tutor at Ridge House, Ascot.
-
Healthcare costs query
Claimant emailed about lumps under skin, asking if respondent would cover private healthcare costs.
-
Respondent agreed to cover healthcare costs
House manager confirmed respondent would cover all required healthcare costs while claimant was isolating at Ridge House.
-
Lobster incident and wrist injury
Claimant injured his wrist while cutting lobsters at respondent's request; diagnosed with torn scapholunate ligament.
-
Surgery costs confirmed
Respondent confirmed in writing she would cover surgery costs.
-
Health and safety raised with house manager
Claimant told house manager he had no training to cut lobsters and that it was a work accident.
-
Meeting with respondent
Respondent decided to dismiss claimant after this meeting; claimant moved to staff cottage next day.
-
Dismissal
Claimant was dismissed with immediate effect; given a letter and asked to leave premises.
-
Claim presented to tribunal
Claimant lodged claims for automatically unfair dismissal, unlawful deduction of wages, and failure to provide amended particulars.
-
Judgment issued
Tribunal dismissed unfair dismissal and wages claims but upheld the claim for amended particulars.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant’s dismissal was automatically unfair under section 100(1)(c) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 because the reason (or principal reason) for dismissal was that he had raised health and safety concerns about lack of training for cutting lobsters. It also considered whether the claimant was entitled to unpaid wages for standby and meal times, and whether he should have received an amended written statement of particulars reflecting an agreement to cover healthcare costs during the Covid-19 bubble.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed the claim for automatically unfair dismissal. The key reason was that the respondent, Ms Y Shkop, was not aware of the health and safety raise when she decided to dismiss the claimant on 2 July 2021. The claimant had raised the issue with the house manager on 1 July, but the respondent did not know about it. The dismissal was for loss of trust and confidence, not for raising safety concerns.
- The claim for unlawful deduction of wages (for standby and meal times) was also dismissed because the tribunal found the claimant had not worked more than his contracted 48 hours per week.
- The claim for an amended written statement of particulars succeeded. The tribunal ordered the respondent to provide an updated contract including the term that the respondent would pay the claimant’s healthcare costs while he was required to comply with the Covid-19 bubble.
- No compensation was awarded as the claim for amended particulars does not carry a financial remedy.
Lessons & takeaways
- If you raise a health and safety concern, make sure your employer is aware of it before any dismissal decision is made – otherwise an automatic unfair dismissal claim may fail.
- Keep a written record of any agreements about healthcare costs or other benefits, as oral promises may be difficult to enforce without an updated contract.
- Claims for unpaid wages require clear evidence of hours worked beyond your contract – vague estimates or claims about standby time are unlikely to succeed.
- Even if your main claim fails, you may still win on a technical point like a failure to provide an amended written statement – but this does not usually result in financial compensation.
When a safety complaint goes unheard
This case highlights a crucial gap in the protection offered by automatic unfair dismissal law. The claimant, a live-in governor and tutor, injured his wrist while cutting lobsters at his employer’s request. Months later, he told the house manager that he had received no training for the task and considered it a work accident. Two days after that conversation, the employer decided to dismiss him for loss of trust and confidence. The tribunal accepted that the claimant had raised a health and safety concern, but the employer – Ms Y Shkop – was not told about it before making the dismissal decision. Because the employer did not know, the dismissal could not be automatically unfair under section 100(1)(c) of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
What the employer could have done differently
The respondent could have avoided the entire dispute by ensuring that any health and safety complaints were escalated to her personally. A simple reporting procedure might have changed the outcome. Additionally, the employer’s agreement to pay the claimant’s healthcare costs during the Covid-19 bubble was never formally added to his contract – a failure that the tribunal corrected by ordering an amended written statement. Had the employer updated the contract at the time, the claimant would not have needed to bring that part of the claim.
Why this matters for similar claims
For employees, the lesson is clear: raising a safety concern with a manager is not enough if the decision-maker is unaware of it. The law protects workers who are dismissed because of their safety complaint, not those who complain but are dismissed for other reasons. For employers, the case is a reminder to document all agreements about pay, benefits, and working conditions – and to take health and safety complaints seriously, even if they come informally. The tribunal’s decision on the amended particulars shows that oral promises can become binding terms, but only if they are recorded in writing.