Case 6010040/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Adrian Wixcey v Vanguard Learning Trust — 2025
- Case reference
- 6010040/2024
- Decision date
- 24 October 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Taft REPRESENTATION
- Venue
- Norwich
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Adrian Wixcey
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a reserved judgment following a preliminary hearing on the respondent's applications to strike out the claimant's claims under sections 47B and 103A of the Employment Rights Act 1996, or alternatively for a deposit order, on the basis that the claimant had no or little reasonable prospect of establishing that he had made qualifying disclosures. The disclosures in issue were a letter of 17 April 2023 to the Chair of Governors and an email of 23 September 2023 to the Department for Education, the NSPCC and local MPs, which concerned staff posting images of children on personal Twitter accounts and an alleged failure to investigate that and a separate matter concerning a male staff member and a female student.
Employment Judge Taft accepted that since the 2013 reforms a claimant's motivation for making a disclosure is not relevant at the liability stage, and that what matters is whether the claimant reasonably believed his disclosures were in the public interest and tended to show a breach of a legal obligation (or its concealment). The Judge held that the claimant could not realistically establish that tweets posted before the publication of Keeping Children Safe in Education breached an obligation contained in that document, but that this was not the only basis on which the disclosures were said to be protected, and that it was conceivable that policy documents could contain legal obligations. Applying Babula v Waltham Forest College, evidence was needed to test the claimant's belief and its reasonableness.
The Judge found that the core facts were in dispute, including whether the respondent received the second disclosure and whether the claimant reasonably believed his disclosures were in the public interest and tended to show breaches of legal obligations or their deliberate concealment. Following Ishmail and Sami v Avellan, those issues had to be resolved at a final merits hearing. The respondent's applications for strike out and for a deposit order were therefore both dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | This was a preliminary hearing on the respondent's applications to strike out and/or for a deposit order in respect of the claimant's s.47B and s.103A ERA 1996 claims. Both applications were dismissed; the underlying whistleblowing/automatic unfair dismissal claims were not adjudicated on the merits and continue to a final hearing. | Other | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Automatic unfair dismissal under s.103A ERA 1996 (dismissal for making protected disclosures). The respondent's strike-out and deposit order applications were dismissed; the substantive claim was not determined at this preliminary hearing and continues to a final merits hearing. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
14 references- s.43B(1) Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.43L(3) Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.47B Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.103A Employment Rights Act 1996
- Williams v Brown EAT 0044/19
- Babula v Waltham Forest College [2007] EWCA Civ 174
- Rule 38(1) Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024
- Mbuisa v Cygnet Healthcare Ltd EAT 0119/18
- Cox v Adecco Group UK & Ireland [2021] ICR 1307
- Ezsias v North Glamorgan NHS Trust [2007] ICR 1126
- Rule 40(1) Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024
- Arthur v Hertfordshire Partnership University NHS Foundation Trust EAT 0121/19
- Sami v Avellan [2022] IRLR 656
- H v Ishmail [2017] IRLR 228
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.