Ian Wilson v The Pension Regulator — 2026

Mr Wilson was employed by The Pensions Regulator from 17 August 2009 until his dismissal without notice on 12 October 2023. The Respondent said that it dismissed him for gross misconduct involving printing and taking home sensitive information and accessing case material without business justification or authorisation. Mr Wilson contended that the reason for dismissal was his alleged protected disclosures.

The tribunal considered disclosures concerning the British Steel Pension Fund in February 2018, Project Aero in June 2020 and Project Laser in March and April 2022. Applying the Williams v Michelle Brown framework, it found that the communications disclosed information and that Mr Wilson genuinely believed they tended to show relevant failures. It nevertheless found that his beliefs were not reasonable: prior professional relationships did not reasonably indicate a regulatory failure in the British Steel matter; his inexperience and the guidance offered to him undermined the reasonableness of his belief concerning Project Aero; and, concerning Project Laser, the tribunal referred to a tendency to become fixed on a proposal and resistant to alternative perspectives. None of the disclosures therefore qualified as protected disclosures.

The tribunal also found that the disclosures were not the reason or principal reason for dismissal. It relied on the substantial interval between the earlier disclosures and dismissal, evidence that clearance applications had reduced generally, the way the 2018 concerns were addressed, the evidence that suggested leave reflected concern for Mr Wilson's health, and correspondence showing engagement with his alternative viewpoints. The automatic unfair dismissal claim based on protected disclosures was dismissed.

For the ordinary unfair dismissal claim, the tribunal found that the conclusion that Mr Wilson had printed and taken home unpublished price-sensitive information was not based on reasonable grounds. The decision-maker relied on others to define such information, did not have the Respondent's legal advice, and relied on a print log that did not identify which documents were unpublished price-sensitive information and included documents that were not, including non-work-related material. The tribunal also found that Mr Wilson's preference for hard-copy documents and his perceived understanding of the policy did not reasonably establish that he had breached it.

The tribunal identified procedural deficiencies, including failure to clarify which documents were alleged to be unpublished price-sensitive information, failure to disclose relevant interview notes despite the disciplinary procedure, reliance on matters and inferences that had not been put to Mr Wilson, failure to make potentially corroborative enquiries, and failure to provide the decision-maker with the legal team's advice. It also recorded that the Acceptable Use Policy did not require prior managerial authorisation before accessing the Project Laser files. The ordinary unfair dismissal claim was therefore well founded. No remedy or monetary award was recorded in these reasons.