Represented himself For the v Mr W Lane, Solicitor — 2021

The claimant, a Junior Content Analyst who started work in September 2019, said he raised concerns to GA and AO about delays in deleting customer accounts and cancelling subscriptions and that these concerns amounted to whistleblowing about GDPR breaches. The tribunal accepted that there had been a backlog of deletion and cancellation requests and that the claimant discussed those issues with colleagues, but it found that he did not in fact raise GDPR concerns with GA or AO. It also accepted the claimant genuinely believed he had done so, but held that his recollection was mistaken.

Applying s.43B ERA 1996 and the authorities it cited on what counts as a disclosure of information and what is needed to identify a breach of legal obligation, the tribunal held that the claimant had not made a protected disclosure. It found that what he complained about was the handling of deletion and cancellation requests, but not a sufficiently identified legal obligation or GDPR breach. The tribunal said that even if GDPR had been alleged, the claimant had not been specific enough about the obligation said to have been breached, and it would also have found that he did not have a reasonable belief that any legal obligation was being breached.

On causation, the tribunal accepted the respondent’s explanation that the claimant was furloughed and then selected for redundancy because of the downturn in business caused by the pandemic and the company’s shift towards Latin American markets, with more work being done by freelancers. It found that no alternative employment was available at the time of dismissal, that the furlough decision was not a precursor to dismissal, and that the protected disclosure allegation was not the reason, or principal reason, for the dismissal. The claim under s.103A ERA 1996 was therefore dismissed and no remedy was awarded.