Mr T Walker (Counsel) For the v Respondent — 2020

This was a preliminary hearing on the Claimant’s application for interim relief after her dismissal by email on 5 August 2020 from her role as Chief Executive Officer of Genesis Research Trust. The Claimant said she had made protected disclosures on 13 July 2020 about the APST gift, conflicts of interest and charity governance, and that she was then moved rapidly into a redundancy process. The Respondents said the Trust had been in serious financial difficulty for years and that the Claimant was dismissed because her role was redundant.

The Tribunal accepted that there was likely to be a protected disclosure for interim relief purposes. It found that the 13 July 2020 letter disclosed information rather than mere allegation, including external legal advice about the APST funds, a different explanation given by Lord Winston to the Finance Manager, and the Claimant’s concern that trustees connected to Imperial College should recuse themselves. It also found it likely that she reasonably believed the matters tended to show possible breaches of fiduciary duty and that the disclosure was made in the public interest.

The Tribunal did not, however, consider it likely that the final Tribunal would find the dismissal reason to be the protected disclosure rather than redundancy. It relied on substantial documentary evidence of the Trust’s financial difficulties over a period of years, correspondence in March and June 2020 about tougher measures and staff reductions, and the existence of restructuring proposals before the 13 July disclosure. Although it noted that the 13 July trustee meeting was not minuted, that the Claimant was dismissed quickly after her letter, and that she was the only employee dismissed at that stage, those points were not enough to show that the redundancy process was a sham.

Applying sections 128 and 129 ERA 1996 and the interim relief authorities, the Tribunal held that there was a genuine redundancy situation within section 139 ERA 1996, and that if the Claimant was selected for dismissal because of her disclosure that was a matter falling within the section 105(6A) distinction rather than proof that redundancy itself was fabricated. Interim relief was therefore refused, and the claim was listed for a four-day final hearing.