Key Facts
- •Mrs. A McDermott, an EDI consultant, contracted with Sellafield Ltd (Respondent 1) via her company.
- •Following anonymous sexual harassment allegations, McDermott was asked to conduct focus group interviews.
- •McDermott advocated for a formal investigation instead.
- •McDermott's report criticized the HR team's dysfunctionality.
- •The Respondents terminated McDermott's contract.
- •McDermott claimed protected disclosure detriment and victimisation.
- •The Employment Tribunal dismissed all claims and awarded costs to Respondents.
- •McDermott appealed the liability and costs decisions.
Legal Principles
Definition of Qualifying Disclosure
Employment Rights Act 1996, section 43B(1)
Protected Disclosure Detriment
Employment Rights Act 1996, section 48(1)
Victimisation
Equality Act 2010, section 27
Victimisation of Contract Workers
Equality Act 2010, section 41
Liability of a Principal for Agent's Actions
Equality Act 2010, sections 109, 111, 112; Ministry of Defence v Kemeh [2014] ECA Civ 91
Causation in Protected Disclosure Claims
NHS Manchester v Fecitt [2011] EWCA Civ 1190
Protected Act - Doing Anything for the Purposes of the Equality Act
Equality Act 2010, section 27(2)(c)
Costs Awards in Employment Tribunals
Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013, rules 76, 78, 84
Outcomes
Liability Appeal Dismissed
While the Tribunal erred on some points, the errors did not affect the overall conclusion that McDermott did not suffer protected disclosure detriment or victimisation.
Costs Appeal Allowed
The Tribunal's costs awards were unsafe due to errors in the liability decision and an overstated assessment of McDermott's case's meritlessness.
Costs Applications Remitted to a New Tribunal Panel
To ensure fairness and confidence in the outcome, given the Tribunal's strong initial view on the meritlessness of McDermott's claim.