Mr P Hall v Transport for London and 2 others — 2021

The claimant brought proceedings against Transport for London and two colleagues, alleging, among other matters, that he had suffered detriments because of a protected disclosure. The preliminary issue was whether those whistleblowing detriment claims could proceed where the alleged protected disclosure was the same communication to his MP, Oliver Heald QC, that had been considered in earlier proceedings.

The tribunal noted that in the 2019 claim it had already been determined, by a judgment promulgated on 4 June 2021, that the communication of 3 November 2017 did not amount to a protected disclosure. Applying res judicata, the tribunal held that the claimant could not re-litigate that issue against the first respondent.

For the second and third respondents, who had not been parties to the earlier claim, the tribunal considered whether there was sufficient identity or privity of interest. It found that there was, because they were employees and alleged actors for the first respondent in relation to the detriments. The tribunal therefore held that the whistleblowing detriment claims against all three respondents could not go forward.