Case 1406118/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Kiaran O'Brien v Gaming International Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 1406118/2020
- Decision date
- 5 May 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Fowell
- Panel members
- Ms S Maidment, Ms H Pollard
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Kiaran O'Brien
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr O'Brien worked as deputy racing manager at the respondent's Swindon greyhound track. The tribunal found that he made a series of protected disclosures about suspected race-fixing, the safety of Newinn Buddy being raced without another trial, and concerns about trainer DJ's welfare. It accepted disclosures 1 to 6 and 8 to 10 as protected disclosures, but held that the later concern about DJ's mental health on 10 July 2020 was not itself a protected disclosure because it did not involve a legal obligation.
On liability for detriment under s.47B ERA 1996, the tribunal found that four detriments were made out on a material-influence basis: Mr Oseman's abusive language in the steward's box on 24 June 2020, Mr Oseman's ignoring/ostracising of Mr O'Brien, the failure to deal with Mr O'Brien's grievance, and the failure to update him on the grievance. It held that the garden leave point and the absence of an appeal were not caused by the disclosures. The tribunal also dealt with time limits under s.48(2) and s.207B ERA 1996, treating the earlier detriments as part of a series of similar acts so that the grievance-related detriments remained in time.
The automatically unfair dismissal complaint was dismissed. Although the tribunal considered the Royal Mail Group Ltd v Jhuti approach because Mr Hayward's decision was informed largely by Mr Geeves, it found that the principal reason for dismissal was the breakdown in the working relationship between Mr O'Brien and Mr Oseman, in the context of a short-service dismissal, rather than the protected disclosures themselves. It therefore did not accept that s.103A ERA 1996 was satisfied.
Compensation was awarded only for the successful whistleblowing detriment claim. Applying Virgo Fidelis Senior School v Boyle and the Vento middle band, the tribunal assessed injury to feelings at £15,000 and added £1,867.07 interest at 8%, producing a total award of £16,867.07.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal accepted that Mr O'Brien had made protected disclosures, but held that the principal reason for dismissal was the breakdown in the working relationship between Mr O'Brien and Mr Oseman, not the disclosures. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | The tribunal upheld four detriments: foul and abusive language by Mr Oseman, being ignored/ostracised by Mr Oseman, failure to address the grievance, and failure to provide updates. It rejected the garden leave and appeal points, and awarded injury to feelings plus interest. | Upheld | — | £16,867 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £16,867
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
17 references- s.43A ERA 1996
- s.43B ERA 1996
- Cavendish Munro Professional Risk Management Limited v Geduld
- Kilraine v London Borough of Wandsworth
- Chesterton Global Ltd v Nurmohamed
- s.47B ERA 1996
- Shamoon v Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary
- Fecitt v NHS Manchester
- s.48(2) ERA 1996
- s.207B ERA 1996
- s.103A ERA 1996
- Abernethy v Mott, Hay and Anderson
- Kuzel v Roche Products Ltd
- Royal Mail Group Ltd v Jhuti
- El-Megrisi v Azad University (IR) in Oxford
- Virgo Fidelis Senior School v Boyle
- Vento v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police
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.