Case 2203918/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Nigel Porter, Counsel, and Bindhams LLP For the v Respondent — 2021
- Case reference
- 2203918/2022
- Decision date
- 16 July 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Gidney
- Venue
- London Central
- Panel members
- Mr David Scoffield, Mr Terry Cook
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Mr Nigel Porter, Counsel, and Bindhams LLP For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Rupert Parry, brought claims of automatic unfair dismissal for making protected disclosures, ordinary unfair dismissal, and detriment for whistleblowing. The tribunal found that he made five qualifying disclosures in total: disclosures 6, 7 and 10 before his dismissal, and disclosures 12 and 13 in post-dismissal appeal letters. It rejected the earlier alleged disclosures as unprotected and held that the appeal letters could qualify as protected disclosures, but only after the dismissal had already occurred.
The automatic unfair dismissal claim under s103A ERA 1996 failed. The tribunal found that the disciplinary process began because Christophe Balleux and Alex Mouturat alleged that confidential information about the French Long Term Power Desk had been leaked, and that the claimant was believed to be the source of that leak. It found that Aleksandra Jakovska only acquired knowledge of the claimant's prior mismarking concerns on 26 October 2021, after the disciplinary process had already started, and that the protected disclosures did not play any part in the decision to dismiss. The whistleblowing detriment claim under s47B ERA 1996 also failed, because the tribunal found that the alleged detriments were not imposed on the ground that the claimant had made protected disclosures.
The ordinary unfair dismissal claim succeeded. Applying s98(4) ERA 1996 and the Burchell approach, the tribunal held that the respondent acted unreasonably in treating the claimant's conduct as a sufficient reason for dismissal. It found there was no fair investigation before dismissal, that the claimant was not given proper notice of the allegations or the evidence relied on, that potentially exculpatory material was not properly pursued or weighed, and that the appeal process did not cure those failings. The tribunal made no Polkey reduction and no reduction for contributory fault. It recorded that a case management hearing would be listed for remedy, so no monetary award was determined in this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | Automatic unfair dismissal claim under s103A ERA 1996. The tribunal found five qualifying disclosures in total, but held that the dismissal was not because of those disclosures; the dismissal process began after allegations that the claimant had disclosed confidential information, and the decision makers were not found to have dismissed him for whistleblowing. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Ordinary unfair dismissal claim under s98(4) ERA 1996. The tribunal found the dismissal reason was conduct, but held the investigation, disciplinary process and appeal were unfair, with no Polkey reduction and no reduction for contributory fault. | Upheld | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | Detriment claim under s47B ERA 1996 based on six alleged detriments. The tribunal rejected the allegations and held that the material treatment was not on the ground of the claimant's protected disclosures. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
8 references- s.98(4) ERA 1996
- Burchell test
- Iceland Frozen Foods v Jones
- Sainsbury's Supermarkets Limited v Hitt
- Taylor v OCS Group Limited
- Software 2000 Ltd v Andrews
- s.103A ERA 1996
- s.47B ERA 1996
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.