Mr Stephen Murdoch v Cornwall Air Ambulance Trust — 2024

The claimant, Cornwall Air Ambulance Trust's COO and later interim CEO, raised concerns in June 2021 about the recruitment of Mr X as CEO, including discrepancies in Mr X's CV and the decision to make an unconditional offer before written references were obtained. The tribunal held that the 3 June 2021 discussion with Mr Cowie was not a protected disclosure because the claimant was seeking guidance and further checks, but that later disclosures on 16, 17 and 18 June, and the 22 July email to the auditor, were protected disclosures. In relation to those later disclosures, the tribunal found the claimant's belief that the matters were in the public interest was objectively reasonable given the respondent's role as a charity providing Cornwall's air ambulance service, the scale of its operations, and the governance and regulatory duties attaching to the CEO and trustees.

The tribunal upheld three whistleblowing detriment claims. It found that Mr Mark's remarks in the 22 July call, Mr Pomfret's comments at the 26 July meeting, and the Stone King letter dealing with the Boniface investigation were each detriments within s.47B ERA 1996. On the tribunal's findings, the remarks by Mr Mark and Mr Pomfret expressly or implicitly linked the claimant's whistleblowing to a breakdown in trust and confidence, and those statements were materially influenced by the protected disclosures. The tribunal also held that the 18 August letter was an inadequate and partial response because it gave only a limited summary of the Boniface report, did not explain the reasoning on the claimant's main concern about Mr X's CV, and withheld the relevant conclusions on confidentiality grounds that the tribunal considered did not justify the level of redaction used.

The tribunal held that the claimant was constructively unfairly dismissed because the cumulative effect of the upheld detriments and the Letter destroyed trust and confidence without reasonable and proper cause, engaging the Malik implied term. It dismissed the s.103A automatic unfair dismissal claim because, although the protected disclosures materially influenced the detriments, they were not found to be the reason or principal reason for the termination; the immediate cause of the resignation was the third detriment and the wider factors affecting the Letter's content. Remedy was not finally assessed in this judgment. The tribunal found there was a 75% chance the claimant would have resigned even if the breaches had not occurred, but it declined to make any reduction for contributory conduct and listed remedy for a later hearing.