Mr Andrew Allen QC, of counsel For the v Respondent — 2021

The tribunal accepted that the claimant's email of 11 June 2018 was a protected disclosure within s.43B ERA 1996. It found that she could reasonably believe she had authorised an overtime payment to the School Business Manager in circumstances that may have breached the first respondent's financial controls, funding arrangements, and/or contractual duties, and it held that later disclosures repeated that protected disclosure within s.43L(3). The tribunal also accepted that the claimant was genuinely concerned about the matter, but it found that she had not asked Mr Adams whether he had already agreed the overtime before sending the email to Mr Greenway.

The tribunal rejected the section 47B detriment allegations. Applying the causation approach discussed in Fecitt v NHS Manchester and the burden of proof in s.48(2) ERA 1996, it accepted Mr Greenway's evidence that he and Ms Dickens decided not to pursue disciplinary action or a further investigation because they regarded the claimant as having made an honest mistake and because further action would be operationally counterproductive. It found that the respondents did investigate the issue to the extent they thought necessary, that there was no attempt to suppress evidence, and that the later steps taken in relation to the auditor and the Trust's internal processes were not done on the ground that the claimant had made protected disclosures.

The tribunal also rejected the pleaded allegations about failing to use the fraud and whistleblowing policies, failing to report matters to external bodies, delaying or withholding documents, and handling the grievance and subject access request improperly. It found that the non-disclosure of the Browne Jacobson report was explained by legal privilege and the fact that the claimant did not need the report to pursue her grievance, and that the timing of the SAR responses was caused by the practical task of gathering and redacting documents rather than retaliation. On the 7 November 2018 termination during notice, the tribunal applied Marshall (Cambridge) Ltd v Hamblin and held that the event was not a dismissal for s.47B purposes; in any event, the decision to end employment with pay in lieu of notice was taken because the claimant's continued employment was seen as posing risks, not because of whistleblowing.

On the constructive dismissal claim, the tribunal applied the approach it set out from De Lacey v Wechseln Ltd and Williams to the question of whether alleged discriminatory or wrongful matters sufficiently influenced a repudiatory breach, although this case was not a discrimination claim. It found that the claimant resigned on 23 July 2018 primarily because of the untenable additional workload arising from HR cases and the general staffing pressures at Pinkwell, not because of any protected disclosure or any breach of trust and confidence by the respondents. It rejected the suggestion that the respondent's later handling of the EdPsych invoice, the audit, or the school's finances was the real cause of resignation. No monetary award was made because all claims failed.