In Person For the v Respondent — 2025

Mr Winter brought a whistleblowing detriment claim arising from alleged disclosures between 20 April 2023 and 20 October 2023 about false signatures on credit hire agreements, late date-stamping of cheques, and related workplace practices. The tribunal applied the framework in sections 43B and 47B of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and referred to Cavendish Munro and Kilraine. It found the allegations lacked dates, locations and other particulars, and that the claimant’s account was inconsistent in places, including as to when the disclosures were said to have ended and what legal obligation they were said to concern.

The tribunal accepted that Mr Winter may have been uncomfortable about some of the practices at work and that he and Bobby Cott may have had very informal discussions about them, but it found those exchanges were not disclosures of information of the kind required by section 43B. It was not satisfied that he made the protected disclosures alleged in paragraph 1 of the list of issues. The tribunal also found that Mr Price was not informed of the alleged underlying matters until November 2023, after the relevant events on 30 October 2023.

As to detriment, the tribunal rejected the case that the 30 October 2023 events were motivated by protected disclosures. It found the respondent placed the claimant on garden leave because it had discovered confidential business information had been sent to his personal email account shortly after he had resigned and was due to join Hastings Direct. The tribunal found no actual detriment arising from the garden leave, the warning that Hastings Direct might be contacted if he did not delete the material, or the agreement he signed confirming deletion. It also found no actual detriment from the 16 May 2024 FCA email, noting there was no evidence that the FCA took any action or that the claimant was identified from the wording used. The claim was therefore dismissed and no remedy was awarded.