Case 1403915/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Robert Warner v Next Steps Independence Ltd and 1 other — 2023
- Case reference
- 1403915/2021
- Decision date
- 21 February 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Housego Tribunal
- Venue
- Exeter
- Panel members
- I Ley, S Long
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Robert Warner
Respondents
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant was finance director of the first respondent, and the second respondent was its chief executive and major shareholder. After Alison Bruce reported an incident involving an IT technician, the claimant made internal disclosures on 23 April 2021 and then external disclosures on 5 May 2021 about sexual harassment and about the second respondent's involvement in clinical intervention with a vulnerable young adult. The tribunal found those disclosures were made in the public interest and met the requirements of s.43B ERA 1996, and it rejected the respondents' limitation defence: none of the claims were out of time.
The tribunal found that once the 23 April disclosures had been made, the second respondent decided the claimant would leave the organisation, and that the subsequent suspension, investigations and disciplinary process were driven by that decision. It found the stated reason of "gross breach of trust" was in substance a reference to the protected disclosures, and that the allegations about the IT incident were not the real reason for the treatment complained of. Applying the Kuzel burden framework and the s.103A analysis discussed with reference to Royal Mail Group Ltd v Jhuti, the tribunal held that the claimant was dismissed because he had made protected disclosures.
On constructive dismissal, the tribunal found the respondent's conduct amounted to a fundamental breach of the implied term of mutual trust and confidence, that the claimant resigned on 15 June 2021 before the disciplinary hearing, and that he did so without affirming the contract. It treated the listing of the grievance and disciplinary hearing on the same day as the last straw. The tribunal also found the pleaded detriments were part of an uninterrupted sequence from late April into July 2021. No remedy was determined at this judgment: the case was relisted for a remedy hearing, and the tribunal noted that further evidence would be needed on loss and on the valuation of the first respondent and the claimant's shareholding.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | Pre-dismissal detriment claim under s.47B ERA 1996 against both respondents. The tribunal found the pleaded detriments were materially influenced by the claimant's protected disclosures, formed an uninterrupted sequence, and were not out of time. Remedy was left to a later hearing. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Constructive unfair dismissal claim against the first respondent. The tribunal found a fundamental breach of the implied term of mutual trust and confidence, that the claimant resigned because of that breach on 15 June 2021, and that he had not affirmed the contract. | Upheld | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | Automatic unfair dismissal claim under s.103A ERA 1996. The tribunal found the principal reason for the dismissal was the claimant's protected disclosures rather than misconduct. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
7 references- s.43B ERA 1996 qualifying disclosure
- s.47B ERA 1996 detriment
- s.103A ERA 1996 protected disclosure dismissal
- s.95(1)(c) ERA 1996
- s.98(4) ERA 1996
- Kuzel v Roche Products Ltd [2008] EWCA Civ 380
- Royal Mail Group Ltd v Jhuti [2019] UKSC 55
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.