In person For the v Respondent — 2025

At a preliminary hearing on 18 March 2025 before Employment Judge Postle sitting alone, the tribunal considered whether the claimant's ERA 1996 whistleblowing complaints should be struck out. The issues identified were whether the alleged disclosures were qualifying protected disclosures under sections 43B and 43C ERA 1996, whether they were made in the public interest, and whether the alleged detriments and dismissal were caused by the disclosure or disclosures. The tribunal applied rule 38(1)(a) of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2024 and treated the claim at its highest, but still had to be satisfied it had a reasonable prospect of success.

The tribunal found that the disclosure relied on was an email of 7 March 2024 to Mr Gideon of Nissan UK, not to the respondent or another responsible person. It concluded that this did not satisfy section 43C ERA 1996 on the facts advanced by the claimant. The tribunal also held that the email concerned a private matter between commercial parties and had not been shown to be made in the public interest. In that context it referred to Chesterton Global Ltd v Nurmohamed and the factors relevant to the public interest question.

On causation, the tribunal found no viable link between the alleged disclosure and the claimed detriments or dismissal. It noted that one alleged detriment pre-dated the disclosure, another was inconsistent with the earlier allegation, and the probationary review meeting had already been arranged on 5 March 2024 before any alleged protected disclosure. The tribunal also accepted Mr Green's evidence that he had no knowledge of any protected disclosure. It further held that the reasons recorded for dismissal in the 14 March 2024 outcome letter, and in the minutes of the 11 March 2024 review meeting, were different from the disclosure-related allegations. For those reasons, the whistleblowing claims were dismissed as having no reasonable prospects of success.