Mr Hammer, Solicitor For the v Mr Hendley, Consultant — 2021

The tribunal heard evidence from the claimant and from Ms Marapara, Maud Munjodzi and Christian Militaru. It preferred R2's account on the main disputes about the 6 May 2019 pub meeting and accepted that the claimant raised the matters later set out in paragraph 10 of the particulars of claim. It also found that the claimant's later account of a 7 May discussion with staff and an empty vodka bottle was not made out.

On the whistleblowing issues, the tribunal held that only two of the alleged disclosures contained sufficient factual content to amount to information: the allegation of theft of cigarettes and the allegation of deliberate neglect of vulnerable residents involving Mr Militaru inviting friends to smoke and drink at the home. The other allegations were too general or lacked sufficient factual detail. The claimant's letter of 8 May 2019 was found not to have been given to the respondents, so it was not a disclosure at all.

Even for the two qualifying items, the tribunal found the claimant did not have the necessary subjective belief and, in any event, did not hold a reasonable belief that they tended to show wrongdoing or danger to residents. It concluded that there were no protected disclosures, so the automatic unfair dismissal claim and the detriment claim failed. The section 1 particulars claim also failed because, by the time of dismissal, the claimant had only been employed for 9 days and the duty had not crystallised under section 2(4) ERA 1996. The judgment did not separately reason the ACAS code point, but the final order states that all claims fail and are dismissed.