Case 2601934/2017 · Employment Tribunal
Mr T Naute v Adhar Project — 2019
- Case reference
- 2601934/2017
- Decision date
- 11 August 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge R Clark
- Venue
- Leicester
- Panel members
- Mrs J Morrish, Mr A Wood
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr T Naute
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that the alleged protected disclosure arose from a December 2016 social meeting between the claimant and Mr Osman. It concluded that the claimant expressed a negative view of Ms Sandhu and probably referred to the earlier data protection issue, but it could not identify any specific information said to have been disclosed. Applying s.43B ERA 1996 and the authorities cited in the judgment, it held that there was no qualifying protected disclosure because the evidence did not show information tending to reveal a relevant legal failure, and the tribunal was not satisfied about reasonable belief, public interest, or the statutory routes to protection under ss.43G and 43H.
Because there was no qualifying protected disclosure, the detriment allegations failed. The tribunal also found in any event that several of the alleged detriments either did not occur, were not detriments, pre-dated the alleged disclosure, or had legitimate explanations. It was not satisfied that the relevant decision-makers knew of any disclosure, and it rejected the claim that the respondent's conduct towards the claimant was materially influenced by protected disclosure.
The disability discrimination claims were withdrawn in the claimant's written submissions and were dismissed upon withdrawal. The pleaded issues had included direct discrimination and a reasonable adjustment complaint about office location, but the tribunal did not determine those issues on the merits.
On dismissal, the tribunal found the reason was the respondent's belief that the claimant had made false mileage claims, not whistleblowing. It found there was a prima facie case of false claims and held that the conduct justified summary dismissal, so both the unfair dismissal and breach of contract claims failed. The unlawful deduction from wages claim also failed because the claimant was already off sick when suspended, the phrase 'contractual pay' referred back to the contract position then in force, and he was entitled only to SSP. The tribunal accepted that the respondent had not issued a written statement of main terms, but no s.38 award could be made because no other claim succeeded.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the principal reason for dismissal was the respondent's belief that the claimant had made false mileage claims, not that he had made a protected disclosure. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The pleaded disability discrimination issues, including direct discrimination and reasonable adjustment, were withdrawn in written submissions and were recorded as dismissed upon withdrawal. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Whistleblowing | The tribunal rejected the protected disclosure case under s.43B ERA 1996 and found no qualifying protected disclosure or material detriment caused by disclosure. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The claim about being paid SSP during suspension failed because the claimant was already off sick when suspended and was entitled only to SSP under the contract. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The notice pay claim failed because the tribunal found false mileage claims amounted to gross misconduct justifying summary dismissal. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
14 references- s.43A ERA 1996
- s.43B ERA 1996
- Cavendish Munro Professional Risk Management Limited v Geduld [2010] ICR 325
- Fincham v HM Prison Service UKEAT/0991/01
- Darnton v University of Surrey
- Underwood v Wincanton PLC
- s.43G ERA 1996
- s.43H ERA 1996
- s.98 ERA 1996
- s.98(4) ERA 1996
- Smith v Hale Town Council 1978 ICR 996 CA
- Boston Deep Sea Fishing and Ice Co v Ansell (1888) 39 ChD 339
- Neary v Dean of Westminster [1999] IRLR 288
- 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.