N Maitre v London Borough of Richmond upon Thames and 1 other — 2023

The claimant had worked for the respondents for 16 years and, at the hearing, the issue was whether a series of alleged disclosures about two elderly brothers amounted to protected disclosures under the whistleblowing provisions. The claimant withdrew numerous earlier allegations. The tribunal also refused a late application to amend alleged disclosure 4 during closing submissions, and it decided the case on the disclosures as finally identified.

The tribunal held that alleged disclosures 1 to 3 were not protected disclosures. It found that the information given to Ms Jameson in early and late November 2019 was an update on the brothers’ case, their vulnerability, accommodation and furniture arrangements, rather than a disclosure that the respondents were failing in a legal duty or that anyone’s health or safety was being endangered. Alleged disclosure 4 was also rejected; the tribunal found there was no disclosure to Ms Dorning about a breach of duty of care.

By contrast, the tribunal accepted that disclosures 6 and 7, made on 4 or 5 December 2019 to Ms Jameson and Julie Bernadello, were protected. By that stage the claimant had visited the temporary accommodation, found one brother unkempt and without appropriate food, and seen conditions she considered unsuitable. After the safeguarding referrals were declined, she raised information that tended to show the council might be failing in its legal obligations and that the health or safety of the brothers was being, or was likely to be, endangered. The tribunal also found those disclosures were reasonably believed to be in the public interest.