Whistleblowing care home employee wins liability but loses remedy after failing to attend hearing
A care home employee who was unfairly dismissed for raising food hygiene and safeguarding concerns won her liability case, but the remedy claim was dismissed when she did not attend the hearing.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
Key facts
- The claimant made protected disclosures about food hygiene, staff smoking, and safeguarding at Bay View Nursing Home.
- The respondent subjected the claimant to detriment by 'setting her up to fail' between April 2021 and May 2022.
- The claimant was unfairly dismissed on 3 May 2022 because of her protected disclosures.
- The respondent entered creditors' voluntary liquidation.
- The claimant did not attend the remedy hearing and the claim was dismissed.
Timeline
-
First protected disclosure
Claimant raised concerns about food hygiene at Bay View Nursing Home.
-
Disclosure about staff conduct
Claimant reported a staff member's conduct towards a service user.
-
Disclosure about staff smoking
Claimant reported staff smoking on premises.
-
Further disclosure about smoking
Claimant reiterated concerns about staff smoking.
-
Disclosure to regulator
Claimant reported concerns to Care Inspectorate Wales.
-
Dismissal
Claimant was unfairly dismissed by the respondent.
-
Liability judgment
Employment Judge Ryan found the claimant was unfairly dismissed and subjected to detriment.
-
Remedy hearing dismissed
Claimant did not attend; remedy claim dismissed under Rule 47.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the employee was unfairly dismissed and subjected to detriment for making protected disclosures about food hygiene, staff smoking, and safeguarding at a care home, and what compensation should be awarded.
The outcome
The tribunal ruled in favour of the employee on liability, finding that she was unfairly dismissed and subjected to detriment because of her protected disclosures. However, at the remedy hearing, the employee did not attend, and the tribunal dismissed the remedy claim under Rule 47 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure. The respondent had entered creditors' voluntary liquidation, and no compensation was awarded.
Lessons & takeaways
- Attending all hearings is crucial; failure to attend can result in your claim being dismissed, even if you have already won on liability.
- If you cannot attend a hearing, inform the tribunal as soon as possible and request an adjournment or alternative arrangements.
- Whistleblowing claims can succeed even if the employer goes into liquidation, but recovering compensation may be difficult.
- Keep the tribunal updated with your current contact details to ensure you receive hearing notices.
A whistleblower's mixed outcome
This case highlights the importance of seeing a claim through to the end. The care home employee had successfully proven that she was unfairly dismissed and subjected to detriment for raising concerns about food hygiene, staff smoking, and safeguarding at Bay View Nursing Home. The tribunal found that Llysywaun Ltd had 'set her up to fail' because of her protected disclosures.
However, when it came to the remedy hearing to decide compensation, the employee did not attend. The tribunal attempted to contact her three times but could not proceed due to insufficient evidence and the inability to ask her questions. As a result, the remedy claim was dismissed under Rule 47.
What could have been done differently
The employee could have informed the tribunal of any difficulties attending the hearing and requested an adjournment. Alternatively, she could have ensured that her evidence was properly served on the respondent and was comprehensive enough for the tribunal to make a decision without her presence.
Why this matters
This case serves as a reminder that winning on liability is only half the battle. To receive compensation, claimants must actively participate in the remedy stage. It also shows that even when an employer goes into liquidation, a whistleblowing claim can succeed on liability, but recovering compensation may be challenging.
Similar cases
Whistleblowing during probation: dismissal for suitability upheld
A Head of People Services with only four months' service was dismissed for lack of suitability during her probation. The tribunal found no link between her protected disclosures and the dismissal, rejecting claims of automatic unfair dismissal and detriment.
Whistleblower unfairly dismissed and subjected to detriment: compensation awarded
A former employee who made a protected disclosure was unfairly dismissed and suffered detriment. The tribunal awarded over £6,300, including £5,000 for injury to feelings.
Whistleblowing media specialist awarded £2.36m after Royal Mail destroyed her career
A media specialist who made protected disclosures about Royal Mail's marketing practices has been awarded £2.36 million after the tribunal found the company's delay in handling her grievance amounted to unlawful detriment.
Deputy town clerk dismissed after raising fire alarm safety concerns: whistleblowing detriment claim succeeds
A deputy town clerk with only three months' service was dismissed after repeatedly raising concerns about a failing fire alarm system. The tribunal found he suffered detriment for whistleblowing but dismissed his automatic unfair dismissal claim.