Ms E Bogowicz v Newport Tax Management LLP and 3 others — 2021

The claimant was employed as Finance Manager and later moved to the first respondent LLP under TUPE. She relied on emails from May 2018, November 2019 and February 2020 about cashflow, drawings, expenses and bank balances as protected disclosures. The tribunal found those communications were part of her finance role and did not disclose wrongdoing; in particular, they did not state that the partners were using the LLP's funds excessively for personal use. It also found that any belief of wrongdoing would not have been reasonable for a senior finance employee, and that the evidence did not show a disclosure tending to prove misuse of expenses for tax purposes.

On that basis, the whistleblowing complaints failed. The tribunal also considered the alleged detriments, including criticism emails, redundancy, the refusal to furlough, the reference issue and the emails of 2 and 3 April 2020, but found no link between those matters and any protected disclosure. It did find the refusal to provide a reference to be a detriment in itself, but not one caused by earlier disclosures.

The unfair dismissal claim succeeded. The tribunal accepted that the principal reason for dismissal was redundancy under section 139 ERA 1996, but held that the dismissal was unfair under section 98(4) ERA 1996 because there was no warning or proper consultation, the claimant was not told the real basis for the decision before it was made, the furlough proposal was rejected without a cogent reason, the appeal did not cure the original defects, and the appeal was handled by the same decision-maker. It found there was no real selection issue and that a failure to bump did not make the dismissal unfair.

The wrongful dismissal and holiday pay claims failed. The claimant had objected to the draft August 2019 contract, especially the proposed three-month notice term, and the tribunal found that the contract variations were never accepted. It held that she had not proved an entitlement to three months' notice or to 28 days' holiday under the new contract, and found that the correct notice and holiday pay had been paid. A remedy hearing was listed for 13 September 2021, so no monetary award was determined in this judgment.