Case 3332239/2018 · Employment Tribunal

Mr McCombie, Counsel For the v Respondent — 2017

Case reference: 3332239/2018
Decision date: 24 July 2017
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Manley
Venue: Watford
Panel members: Mr I Bone, Mr D Bean

Indexed: 21 May 2026

Parties

1 named

Claimant

Mr McCombie, Counsel For the

Respondent

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

Mrs Fitzmaurice was employed by Luton Irish Forum from 2005 until she resigned in May 2018. The tribunal found that she had made some protected disclosures to her employer between December 2014 and August 2017. These included concerns about the main door being left unlocked, lone working, car park lighting, alarms in interview rooms, an intruder incident, the use of reserves for the Operations Manager post, and Charity Commission rules. It rejected some other alleged disclosures, but held that the claimant had a reasonable belief that some of the matters raised amounted to health and safety risks or possible breaches of legal obligation and that those disclosures were made to her employer.

The whistleblowing detriment complaints failed because the tribunal found that the disciplinary process was driven by allegations arising from the 31 July and 25 August 2017 conversations, not by the protected disclosures. It found, on the balance of probabilities, that the claimant did say she was going to the Charity Commission, that trustees might lose their houses, and that she made the "Hitler's Henchman" comment about Ms Depka. The tribunal also found that the later reference to Luton Borough Council was based on the fact that the claimant had been under investigation when she left, and was not caused by any protected disclosure.

The unfair dismissal claim also failed. The tribunal found that the claimant was not dismissed and that there was no causal link between any protected disclosure and the disciplinary action. It further rejected the contention that the respondent's handling of the matter amounted to dismissal or that there was any unlawful reason for the treatment complained of.

The constructive dismissal claim was dismissed because the tribunal found no repudiatory breach of contract and no breach of the implied term of mutual trust and confidence. It rejected the allegation that witness statements were contrived or exaggerated, and it found no basis for saying that management had sought to build a disciplinary or SOSR case in order to remove the claimant from employment. The resignation on 24 May 2018 followed the grievance appeal outcome, but it was not held to have been caused by any breach by the respondent.

Claims and outcomes

3 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Whistleblowing	The tribunal found that some of the claimant's communications were protected disclosures, including concerns about the use of reserves, Charity Commission rules, and several health and safety matters, but it held that the detriment allegations were not made out because the disciplinary process was started for reasons connected to the 31 July and 25 August 2017 conduct allegations, not because of the disclosures. It also rejected any link between the disclosures and the reference later given to Luton Borough Council.	Dismissed	—	—
Unfair dismissal	The automatic unfair dismissal case under s.103A ERA 1996 failed. The tribunal found that the claimant was not dismissed, and in any event the respondent's actions were not because she had made protected disclosures.	Dismissed	—	—
Constructive dismissal	The tribunal found no fundamental or repudiatory breach of contract and no breach of the implied term of mutual trust and confidence. It rejected the case that witness statements were contrived or that management sought to build a disciplinary case to remove the claimant, and held that her resignation after the grievance appeal was not caused by any breach by the respondent.	Dismissed	—	—

Legal tests applied

13 references

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.