Miss A Kolusheska v Law Firm Limited — 2025

Applying Cavendish Munro Professional Risks Management Ltd v Geduld and Kilraine, the tribunal held that the claimant’s first alleged disclosure was not a protected disclosure. It accepted that there was a conversation in late August 2023 about client care letters and data/payment questions, but it rejected the claimant’s evidence that she told the respondent it needed to send a client care letter. The tribunal found the comment about clients asking questions lacked sufficient factual content to amount to a disclosure of information tending to show a breach of legal obligation.

The tribunal also found that the second alleged disclosure, an email of 14 September 2023 relating to the Cleo system and the automation of client care letters and closing letters, was not a disclosure of wrongdoing. It was found to be a positive email about training and automation, with no reference to any failure to send client care letters and nothing capable of amounting to a protected disclosure. On that basis, the automatic unfair dismissal claim for whistleblowing failed.

On dismissal more generally, the tribunal found that the claimant had less than two years’ service and so could not bring ordinary unfair dismissal proceedings. It accepted the respondent’s explanation that dismissal was for conduct and capability reasons, including punctuality and performance concerns, and found no evidence connecting the dismissal to any alleged disclosure. The separate s.104 claim failed because the tribunal found the overtime request was not the reason or principal reason for dismissal and the respondent had previously paid overtime, indicating that the request was coincidental rather than causative.

The detriment claim under s.47B also failed. The tribunal found the August 2023 payslip delay was an oversight while the manager was abroad, and that the other alleged detriments were either factually incorrect, not capable of amounting to detriments, or not linked to any protected disclosure. It found the claimant had been sent payslips without requesting them in September, October and after dismissal in November, and that the respondent had responded positively to her suggestions about automating client care letters and had sent her on CRM training.