Ms M J F Lorenzo v Barclays Bank UK plc and 1 other — 2021

The claimant alleged that in 2014 she had made protected disclosures about customer registration figures and customer data in the Bespoke business, and that in 2019 and 2020 Barclays delayed and withdrew a job offer, recorded her as ineligible, misstated that she had previously been dismissed, and closed her whistleblowing complaint without adequate investigation because of those disclosures. The tribunal found that the claimant had not made the alleged protected disclosures in 2014. It found that the emails and conversations relied on did not disclose information tending to show a breach of legal obligation, that the claimant's account of the words used was unreliable, and that other witnesses did not recall allegations of wrongdoing being raised.

The tribunal also found that any belief the claimant held about customers being registered without consent or customer numbers being misrepresented was not shown to have been held at the relevant time or, in the circumstances, to have been reasonable. It found that reports distinguished between different categories of registration and customer engagement, and that the claimant had not raised concerns through available whistleblowing or legal channels at the time. In relation to the 2020 report, the tribunal found the concern raised was personal to the withdrawal of the job offer and was not made in the public interest.

For completeness, the tribunal considered the alleged detriments and found they were not because of, on the ground of, or materially influenced by any matters relied on as disclosures. It accepted evidence that the job offer was withdrawn after the claimant failed the standard pre-employment screening process because her earlier employment had ended under a compromise agreement following performance concerns, that the mistaken reference to dismissal was corrected, and that the Raising Concerns Team triaged the claimant's January and February 2020 complaints under the applicable process. The whistleblowing detriment claim failed and was dismissed.