Case 3202036/2018 · Employment Tribunal
(1) Mr Neil Adams (2) Mr Dean Adams v De La Rue International Limited — 2019
- Case reference
- 3202036/2018
- Decision date
- 2 October 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge John Crosfill
- Venue
- London East Hearing Centre
- Panel members
- Ms M Long, Mr M L Wood
Parties
2 namedClaimant
(1) Mr Neil Adams (2) Mr Dean Adams
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimants, brothers employed on the Debden vault project, complained after an incident on 22 January 2018 when Jake Bensalah entered the disintegrator area and banknotes were placed on the conveyor. The tribunal found that the document produced by Stella Hughes was training material rather than a formal SOP, that the relevant contractual obligations were found in Schedule 9 and the later formal SOPs, and that the claimants’ complaints were framed in vague terms about checks being interrupted or procedures being breached. It held that Dean Adams and Neil Adams did not actually believe they were making disclosures in the public interest: their complaints were found to be a response to criticism and friction at work, and Dean Adams knew that there were no checks left undone when the notes were put on the disintegrator.
On causation, the tribunal rejected the case that the recruitment managers were aware of, or influenced by, any protected disclosures. It found that Karen Gay, John Robertson and Sean Vaux made their decisions by reference to the advertised criteria, CVs, interviews, tests and scoring matrices, and that the claimants’ applications generally failed because they did not tailor them to the roles or did not meet the stated criteria. It also rejected the argument that Jake Bensalah had manipulated the decision makers. For the specific detriment allegations, the tribunal found that the later acts relied on after 14 May 2018 were not unlawful, and that the earlier detriment complaints were outside the time limit in any event.
The unfair dismissal claims also failed. The tribunal found that the claimants were employed on fixed-term contracts tied to the vault project, that the February 2018 extension was given because further work remained to complete that project, and that the contracts ended on 31 May 2018 because the project had finished and no other role had been obtained. It held that the reason for dismissal was not that the claimants had made protected disclosures. No compensation or other remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | Both claimants brought detriment claims under ss.47B and 48 ERA 1996 arising from the 22 January 2018 incident and later recruitment decisions. The tribunal found that none of the alleged disclosures was a protected disclosure, that the claimants did not actually believe their disclosures were in the public interest, and that the relevant decision makers either did not know of any disclosure or were not influenced by it. It also held that the detriment claims based on earlier acts were out of time, and that the post-14 May 2018 matters relied upon were not unlawful acts. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Both claimants alleged that the non-renewal of their fixed-term contracts was automatically unfair because it was caused by protected disclosures, relying on s.103A ERA 1996. The tribunal rejected that case, finding that the vault project was finite, that the final extension in February 2018 was given because the project still needed to be completed, and that the contracts ended on 31 May 2018 because the project had finished and no alternative roles had been secured. It held that protected disclosures played no part in the dismissal decision. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
14 references- s.43B ERA 1996
- Kilraine v London Borough of Wandsworth
- Babula v Waltham Forest College
- Chesterton Global Ltd (t/a Chestertons) v Nurmohamed
- Fecitt v NHS Manchester
- Blackbay Ventures Ltd t/a Chemistree v Gahir
- s.47B ERA 1996
- s.48 ERA 1996
- s.103A ERA 1996
- Selkent Bus Co v Moore
- Abercrombie v Agerangemsters
- Royal Mail Group Ltd v Jhuti
- Arthur v London Eastern Railway Ltd
- Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis v Hendricks
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.