Case 3315333/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr R Murray v The Chief Constable of Thames Valley Police — 2023
- Case reference
- 3315333/2020
- Decision date
- 21 August 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Shastri-Hurst Representation
- Venue
- Reading
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr R Murray
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr Murray, a Thames Valley Police inspector/chief inspector, said that between September 2017 and July 2020 he made 21 protected disclosures about the handling of officers’ health and sickness data, including the use of LHRGs, SRPs, RDFs and Team View/PeopleSoft. The tribunal found that all of the alleged disclosures other than PID 10 were disclosures of information and that, in the claimant’s reasonable belief, they tended to show breaches of data protection obligations. It also found that the disclosures were made in the public interest. PID 10 was found not to amount to a disclosure of information.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | Automatic constructive unfair dismissal claim under s103A ERA 1996; tribunal found the claimant made protected disclosures (all alleged disclosures except PID 10), but they were not the reason or principal reason for the adverse treatment or resignation, and the implied term of trust and confidence was not breached. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
15 references- s43A ERA 1996
- s43B ERA 1996
- s43K ERA 1996
- s95(1)(c) ERA 1996
- s103A ERA 1996
- Cavendish Munro Professional Risks Management Ltd v Geduld
- Kilraine v London Borough of Wandsworth
- Babula v Waltham Forest College
- Chesterton Global Ltd (t/a Chestertons) v Nurmohamed
- Price v Surrey County Council
- Salisbury NHS Foundation Trust v Wyeth
- Kong v Gulf International Bank (UK) Ltd
- Malik v Bank of Credit and Commerce International SA
- Western Excavating (ECC) Ltd v Sharp
- Omilaju v Waltham Forest London Borough Council
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.