Mr Jack Fleming v Sodexo Live UK Limited — 2026

The claimant, a former Finance Manager, reported concerns on 27 March 2025 about irregular cash handling and bank deposits involving a colleague, Mr Bonnar. The tribunal found that the telephone call and WhatsApp message to James Purcell on that date were protected disclosures: they conveyed specific information, the claimant reasonably believed the matters suggested fraud, theft or breach of legal obligation, and he reasonably believed reporting them was in the public interest. The tribunal also found that the claimant's comments at the 31 March 2025 meeting did not add any new protected disclosure beyond what had already been disclosed, because he had not yet formed a belief that the Kappture adjustments necessarily indicated wrongdoing.

The detriment complaint under section 47B ERA 1996 failed. Although the disciplinary process followed the disclosures, the tribunal found that the respondent's concern was not that the claimant had spoken up, but that he had delayed in reporting matters he had already seen. The disciplinary allegations were framed around delay in reporting the cash bag and delay in reporting the editing of Kappture reports, rather than the making of the disclosures themselves. The tribunal also found that the later complaints about short notice for the disciplinary and appeal hearings, and the appeal outcome reasoning, were the result of independent decisions and administrative factors, not because the protected disclosures had been made.

The automatic unfair dismissal claim under section 103A ERA 1996 also failed. Because the claimant had less than two years' service, the tribunal held that he had to prove that the sole or principal reason for dismissal was the making of protected disclosures. It found he could not do so. The evidence more strongly showed that the respondent dismissed him because it considered he had been culpable in delaying the reporting of apparent wrongdoing. The tribunal stated at the end of its reasons that it made no finding of misconduct or other culpable practice against the claimant, and dismissed both complaints.