Mrs D Atwell v Taylor Haldane Barlex LLP — 2024

Mrs D Atwell worked for Taylor Haldane Barlex LLP in the Ipswich crime team. During the proceedings she withdrew the victimisation complaint, and later withdrew the harassment complaint related to philosophical belief and the indirect discrimination claims based on age and philosophical belief; those claims were dismissed upon withdrawal. The remaining live claims were whistleblowing detriments under s.47B ERA 1996 and automatic unfair dismissal under s.103A ERA 1996.

The tribunal found that concerns about the claimant's performance pre-dated the alleged protected disclosures. It accepted that Miss Folashade Abiodun had raised concerns in meetings on 17 November 2021 and 17 December 2021 about the claimant's speed, prioritisation, updating of files and handling of legal aid work, and it found those concerns were reflected in contemporaneous emails from Miss Abiodun and Ms Williams. The tribunal rejected the claimant's allegations that documents had been fabricated, including the psychiatric report referred to in relation to a 14 December 2021 meeting and the email said to have been sent on 25 November 2021.

On the alleged disclosures, the tribunal held that the first part of the claimant's 20 December 2021 email was an informal grievance about her own position and not a protected disclosure. It found that the sentence referring to there being "little or no Covid safety precautions" was too general to be a disclosure of information, although the reference to a barrister coming into the office while infected with Covid was information; even so, the tribunal held that any belief that this showed a relevant failure or was in the public interest was not reasonable in the circumstances. The tribunal reached the same conclusion about the emails of 1 February 2022 and 2 February 2022 concerning the A12 incident and panic attack: they were about the claimant's own situation, and any belief in health and safety or public-interest significance was not reasonable.

Because it found no protected disclosures, the whistleblowing detriment claim failed. The tribunal also held, in the alternative, that the complained-of emails, the dismissal process and the LinkedIn profile viewing were motivated by genuine performance concerns rather than by any protected disclosure. It found that Mr Michael Warren dismissed the claimant because he believed her performance was not meeting the standard required, not because she had made protected disclosures, and therefore dismissed the automatic unfair dismissal claim. The tribunal noted that most of the remaining complaints were also out of time and that it would have been reasonably practicable for them to have been brought earlier, but it did not need to decide limitation issues to dispose of the case.