Mr Savva (in person) For the v Not attending — 2023

The tribunal heard only the remaining whistleblowing detriment complaints. It found that of the eight public interest disclosures relied on at hearing, PID 6, PID 8 and PID 9 were qualifying disclosures, while PID 3, PID 5, PID 10, PID 11 and PID 12 did not qualify. The tribunal also found that only PID 6 had been escalated to the respondent by Paul Vrahimis, who escalated it in part for his own financial interests but also in the public interest.

The first detriment complaint, the respondent's assertion in its grounds of resistance that the claimant was not an employee, failed. The tribunal found that the respondent genuinely took the contractor point because the claimant had been paid gross without PAYE or National Insurance deductions, and that this was consistent with its understanding of the claimant's engagement. It rejected the case that the point was raised because of the claimant's protected disclosures.

The second detriment complaint, the refusal of subject access requests dated 15 October 2020 and 10 September 2021, also failed. The tribunal found that the refusals were based on the reasons stated in the correspondence, namely prevention or detection of crime, apprehension or prosecution of offenders, and the view that the requests were manifestly unfounded, excessive, or intended to harass. It found that the refusals were not on the ground of PID 6 or any other qualifying disclosure, and dismissed the claims.