Claimant v University of Southampton — 2023

The tribunal heard that the dispute arose during the first COVID lockdown while Professor Savelyeva was working on a cancer vaccine project with Dr Wang at the University of Southampton. It found that the University had imposed strict access rules for laboratories and that Dr Wang later admitted accessing Somers building contrary to those rules. The tribunal held that Professor Savelyeva's email to Professor Underwood on 8 June 2020 was a protected disclosure insofar as it raised potential breaches of contractual obligations to funders and the consequences for the project, and that her 14 June 2020 email to Miss Nugent repeated that disclosure. It also held that her complaint to Professor Eccles on 29 June 2020 was a protected disclosure. However, it did not accept that the references in the 8 June email to race harassment or health and safety amounted to reasonably believed protected disclosures.

The tribunal dismissed the central whistleblowing detriment allegations concerning the disciplinary investigation, the refusal to let Dr Wang return as a visitor, the findings about building access, and the later amended outcome of the investigation. It accepted Professor Underwood's evidence that his reaction to the 8 June email was to what he saw as a request that he intervene in an independent investigation, not to the disclosure itself. It found that the later decisions were driven by genuine concerns about COVID-rule breaches, Dr Wang's admitted conduct, the fact that he had left employment, insurance and health and safety concerns, and the pressure of dealing with research continuity during lockdown. The tribunal also found that the later alterations to the investigation outcome reflected Professor Eccles' true view of the evidence rather than any response to protected disclosure.

The tribunal did identify one procedural failure: Miss Nugent did not separately investigate the claimant's complaint about Professor Underwood when it should have been addressed separately. It treated that as a detriment in process terms, but found that the failure arose from confusion over the process, remote working, time pressures, and the broader pandemic context, not from the claimant's protected disclosures. It also found that the complaint was in fact referred to the Chief Operating Officer, so the alleged failure to refer it was not made out. The remaining 2021 allegations about visitor title and post-resignation funding were also rejected, with the tribunal finding the title issue was administrative and that there was no evidence Professor Underwood intervened over funding. All claims were dismissed and no monetary award was made.