Rosehill Day Nursery Ltd

Case Summary

Miss N Murray brought complaints of automatically unfair dismissal, whistleblowing detriment, health and safety detriment, and disability discrimination against Rosehill Day Nursery Limited. The tribunal found most complaints not well-founded, but upheld one complaint regarding failure to make reasonable adjustments for disability concerning the refusal to stay appeal proceedings pending written representations.

The tribunal found that the claimant's complaints of unfair dismissal, whistleblowing detriment, and health and safety detriment were not well-founded and dismissed them. However, the tribunal upheld the complaint regarding failure to make reasonable adjustments for disability in relation to the refusal to stay appeal proceedings pending written representations, finding this complaint well-founded.

Use these claim-type pages to compare this decision with other published tribunal cases, outcome patterns, and visible award data.

• •automatically unfair dismissal by reason of raising health and safety concerns
• •automatically unfair dismissal by reason of whistleblowing
• •detriment for raising health and safety concerns
• •detriment for making a protected disclosure
• •direct disability discrimination
• •unfavourable treatment arising in consequence of disability
• •failure to make reasonable adjustments for disability

1 EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS Claimant: Miss N Murray Respondent: Rosehill Day Nursery Limited Heard at: Manchester (by CVP) On: 26-30 January 2026 Before: Employment Judge McDonald Mr G Pennie Ms S Moores REPRESENTATION: Claimant: Ms A Kaura (Counsel) Respondent: Miss S English (Litigation Consultant) JUDGMENT The unanimous judgment of the Tribunal is that: 1. The complaint of automatically unfair dismissal by reason of raising health and safety concerns (s.100(1)(c) Employment Rights Act 1996) is not well- founded. The claimant was not unfairly dismissed. 2. The complaint of automatically unfair dismissal by reason of whistleblowing (s.103A ERA) is not well-founded. The claimant was not unfairly dismissed. 3. The complaint of being subjected to detriment for raising health and safety concerns (s.44(1)(c) ERA) is not well-founded and is dismissed. 2 4. The complaint of being subjected to detriment for making a protected disclosure (s.47B(1) ERA) is not well-founded and is dismissed. 5. The complaints of direct disability discrimination (s.13 Equality Act 2010) are not well-founded and are dismissed. 6. The complaints of unfavourable treatment because of something arising in consequence of disability (S.15 Equality Act 2010) are not well-founded and are dismissed. 7. The complaint of failure to make reasonable adjustments for disability (ss.20- 21 Equality Act 2010) by refusing to stay the appeal proceedings pending written representations is well-founded and succeeds: 8. The remaining complaint of failure to make reasonable adjustments for disability is not well-founded and is dismissed. Approved by: Employment Judge Mcdonald 30 January 2026 Judgment sent to the parties on: 24 March 2026 For the Tribunal: ....................................... Notes Reasons for the judgment having been given orally at the hearing, written reasons will not be provided unless a request…