J McCulpha v Nicholas Postgate Catholic Academy Trust — 2025

The claimant, J McCulpha, brought whistleblowing detriment claims and an unfair dismissal claim arising out of events at St Gerard’s Primary School, including the missing perfume allegation in 2020, several grievances and grievance appeals, the covid-related disciplinary process, and the later disciplinary process concerning the statement said to be signed by Moly Sherwood. The tribunal found that much of the written material relied on for the alleged disclosures had been drafted by Mr Bulman rather than the claimant herself, and it treated his evidence cautiously for that reason.

On the whistleblowing claims, the tribunal applied the protected disclosure framework in sections 43A and 43B ERA 1996 and the public interest authorities including Chesterton Global v Nurmohamed and Kilraine. It found that the claimant did not genuinely believe the information she sent or handed over was in the public interest; the communications were personal in character and were directed to her own treatment, her wish to return to work at the school, and her wish to clear her name. The tribunal also held that the letters Mr Bulman sent in his own name were not disclosures made by the claimant at all. As a result, all section 47B detriment complaints failed, including the later complaint that dismissal of her appeal against dismissal was itself a detriment.

On the dismissal claim, the tribunal found that the principal reason for dismissal was the disciplinary panel’s belief that the claimant had deliberately falsified the document she said was a statement signed by Moly Sherwood in May 2021. The panel also believed that, in the 25 May 2021 letter to Mr Hegarty, the claimant had knowingly made a false and vexatious allegation that Ms White and Mr Macaulay had produced a false statement from Ms Sherwood. The tribunal accepted Ms Sherwood’s evidence, found that the respondent had reasonable grounds for its belief, and concluded that the investigation was adequate for section 98(4) ERA 1996 purposes.

The tribunal criticised the suspension in January 2022, finding that it was a knee-jerk reaction, contrary to the respondent’s policy and the ACAS Code because it was not kept under review. It nevertheless held that this defect did not make the dismissal unfair overall. The tribunal rejected the claimant’s arguments that the dismissal was predetermined, that she was denied a genuine opportunity to be accompanied, that the appeal was a sham, or that the process was rendered unfair by the time taken. The final written warning from the earlier covid matter was not a material factor in the dismissal. All claims were dismissed and no monetary award was made.