A McDermott v Sellafield Ltd & Ors.

A McDermott v Sellafield Ltd & Ors.

The Employment Tribunal did not err in dismissing the liability claims: the claimant did not make protected disclosures or acts in the relevant sense, was not subjected to detriment or victimisation for any such disclosures or acts, and the second respondent was not liable as principal. While the Tribunal erred in its structured analysis of certain disclosures and protected acts, these errors did not affect the outcome. However, the costs awards were unsafe due to errors in the Tribunal's assessment of the arguability and fact-sensitivity of the claims, and are set aside for reconsideration by a fresh panel.

Parties
Appellant/claimant: A McDermott; First Respondent: Sellafield Ltd; Second Respondent: Nuclear Decommissioning Authority; Third Respondent: H Roberts
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 September 2024
Procedural Posture
Employment Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From Employment Tribunal (liability and Costs)
Outcome
Liability appeal dismissed; costs appeal allowed; costs applications remitted to a fresh tribunal panel.
Legal Topics
Protected Disclosure (whistleblowing), Victimisation, Employment Rights Act 1996, Equality Act 2010, Agency Liability, Costs Orders
Employment Law Equality Law Protected Disclosure (whistleblowing) Victimisation Employment Rights Act 1996 Equality Act 2010 Agency Liability Costs Orders

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 23 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

A McDermott

Appellant/claimant

Sellafield Ltd

First Respondent

Nuclear Decommissioning Authority

Second Respondent

H Roberts

Third Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From Employment Tribunal (liability and Costs)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant made protected disclosures under the Employment Rights Act 1996
  2. 2 Whether the claimant was subjected to detriment or victimisation for making protected disclosures or protected acts
  3. 3 Whether the second respondent could be liable as principal for acts of the first respondent under agency principles

Ratio Decidendi

The Employment Tribunal did not err in dismissing the liability claims: the claimant did not make protected disclosures or acts in the relevant sense, was not subjected to detriment or victimisation for any such disclosures or acts, and the second respondent was not liable as principal. While the Tribunal erred in its structured analysis of certain disclosures and protected acts, these errors did not affect the outcome. However, the costs awards were unsafe due to errors in the Tribunal's assessment of the arguability and fact-sensitivity of the claims, and are set aside for reconsideration by a fresh panel.

Court Disposition

Liability appeal dismissed; costs appeal allowed; costs applications remitted to a fresh tribunal panel.

Orders

  • Liability appeal dismissed; Employment Tribunal's dismissal of claims upheld.
  • Costs appeal allowed; costs awards in favour of all respondents set aside.