Mr W. Sigismund v Financial Conduct Authority — 2022

The claimant worked for the FSA and then the FCA and developed the Harm metrics, which he said revealed undercapitalisation and regulatory failures. The tribunal found that some of the matters he relied on were protected disclosures, including specified Harm metrics disclosures and some P2P lending disclosures. Other alleged disclosures were not protected disclosures because they lacked sufficient information, did not show a reasonable belief in breach of legal obligation, or were not proved with sufficient specificity.

The tribunal dismissed the whistleblowing detriment claims. It found that most alleged detriments were not made out or were not materially influenced by protected disclosures. It found some 2014-2015 detriments relating to the external review of the Harm metrics and the decision to stop that work were well-founded in principle, but they were presented long out of time and the tribunal lacked jurisdiction.

The tribunal rejected the automatic unfair dismissal claim. It found the dismissal was for redundancy, alternatively restructuring as some other substantial reason, and not because of protected disclosures. The ordinary unfair dismissal claim succeeded only because the appeal officer did not address the claimant's central appeal ground that he had been dismissed for whistleblowing, although the tribunal expressed a preliminary view that proper consideration was likely to have made no difference to the outcome.