Mr Nicholas Dancer v Secretary of State for Business & Trade — 2024

The claimant resigned after requesting an external secondment and being told he did not meet the respondent's eligibility criteria because he was subject to a formal attendance management process. The tribunal found that this decision was in line with policy, supported by HR advice, and was not a repudiatory breach. It considered each alleged earlier act relied on as part of a final straw case and found the respondent's actions or omissions were reasonable and proper, including the attendance warnings, disciplinary process, handling of diversity data, grievance decisions, and foreign business trip decisions.

The tribunal found that neither the final act nor the cumulative course of conduct breached the implied term of trust and confidence. It also found, in the alternative, that the claimant did not resign in response to any repudiatory breach, but because he had secured a better paid private sector role, and that he had affirmed the contract by continuing to work and seeking a secondment.

On whistleblowing, the tribunal found that the claimant had told his manager about his arrest and charge, and later told her that police had refused to receive evidence about his head injury and bank card fraud. It held these were not qualifying disclosures: the first did not disclose wrongdoing or refer to a miscarriage of justice, and the second was personal to the claimant with no evidence that he had the public interest in mind. In any event, the alleged detriments were not done on the ground of any protected disclosure. The tribunal also found that, had the whistleblowing claim otherwise succeeded, it would have been out of time.