Case 2417515/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Ms R Hall v Lingwood Security Management Limited and 1 other — 2022
- Case reference
- 2417515/2020
- Decision date
- 27 September 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge McDonald
- Venue
- Manchester
- Panel members
- Mrs C Bowman, Dr B Tirohl
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Ms R Hall
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMs Hall worked as a Security Officer, rejoined Lingwood Security Management Ltd on 19 December 2019, and was dismissed without notice on 12 June 2020 after an email exchange about the respondent's electronic timesheet system. The tribunal noted that she did not have two years' service for ordinary unfair dismissal, although it also recorded that the dismissal was carried out without a fair disciplinary process.
On the whistleblowing detriment claim, the tribunal accepted that Ms Hall had privacy and safety concerns, including a history of violence and stalking, and that she believed the issue was in the public interest in relation to GDPR. It nevertheless held that her 11 June 2020 emails did not amount to a protected disclosure because they did not disclose information with sufficient factual specificity: she said she was uncomfortable putting personal details into a colleague's phone, but did not set out an actual data-protection breach or a specific health and safety risk. The s.47B claim therefore failed, and the tribunal also held that the claim against Mr Blakemore was out of time and that it was reasonably practicable to present it in time.
The automatic unfair dismissal claim under s.103A ERA 1996 also failed because there was no protected disclosure. The tribunal said that, if it had needed to decide motive, it would have found that Mr Blakemore dismissed Ms Hall because he was impatient with her criticism of the timesheet app, her challenge to him, and her continued emails, rather than because she had blown the whistle. The tribunal also noted that the alleged failure to deal with her appeal would have raised a causation issue had there been a protected disclosure, but that did not alter the outcome.
The s.104 ERA 1996 claim based on asserting a statutory right failed because the tribunal found Ms Hall did not allege that the employer had infringed a relevant statutory right in the emails, and that a GDPR complaint was not a relevant statutory right for s.104. Separately, it rejected the respondent's argument that the 2019 contract covered her re-engagement: the claimant should have been issued fresh particulars when she restarted work on 19 December 2019. No s.38 Employment Act 2002 award was made because none of the substantive claims succeeded.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | Detriment claim under s.47B ERA 1996 against both respondents. The tribunal held the 11 June 2020 emails were not a protected disclosure because they lacked sufficient factual specificity. It also held the claim against Mr Blakemore was out of time and that it was reasonably practicable to present it in time. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Automatic unfair dismissal claim under s.103A ERA 1996. Dismissed because there was no protected disclosure. The tribunal said that, had it needed to decide motive, the principal reason for dismissal was impatience with the claimant's criticism of the timesheet app and her continued emails, not whistleblowing. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Automatic unfair dismissal claim under s.104 ERA 1996. Dismissed because the claimant did not allege infringement of a relevant statutory right in the emails, and a GDPR complaint was not treated as a relevant statutory right for s.104. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | Ancillary s.1 ERA 1996 / s.38 Employment Act 2002 issue. The tribunal held the claimant should have been issued fresh particulars on re-engagement on 19 December 2019, but no s.38 award was made because none of the substantive claims succeeded. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
7 references- s.43B ERA 1996 qualifying disclosure
- Chesterton Global Ltd v Nurmohamed public interest factors
- Shamoon detriment test
- Palmer v Southend-on-Sea Borough Council reasonably practicable test
- s.103A ERA 1996
- s.104 ERA 1996
- s.1 ERA 1996 / s.38 Employment Act 2002
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.