Miss K O’Donnell v Emblation Ltd — 2026

Miss O’Donnell claimed automatically unfair dismissal under section 103A of the Employment Rights Act 1996, alleging that she had been dismissed because she made protected disclosures. The tribunal dismissed the claim. It found that her communications in June and December 2024 did not satisfy the statutory requirements for qualifying disclosures because, depending on the communication, they lacked sufficient factual content and specificity, could not reasonably be believed to tend to show a relevant failure, or could not reasonably be believed to have been made in the public interest.

The tribunal found that the 5 June 2024 message about the redundancy process conveyed no facts and that the 6 June discussion concerned an issue which had already been resolved. It found that the 21 June recruitment email lacked the specificity required to tend to show a breach of the Equality Act 2010 and did not reasonably concern the public interest. The comments made during the 10 December consultation meetings were insufficiently specific, while the subsequent email related largely to the claimant’s own employment and redundancy selection. The claimant no longer relied on the alleged disclosure dated 12 September 2024.

The tribunal also considered causation in case any communication qualified for protection. It found that the reason for dismissal was the respondent’s financial position in December 2024, the need for immediate cost savings to avoid receivership, and CEO Ian Stevens’ view that a business of the respondent’s size did not require an HR Manager. Mr Stevens and Alan McKenna did not know about the June communications when the redundancy process began, and the December communications occurred after the claimant’s role had already been placed at risk. The tribunal found that Ken Lewandowski did not decide to place the role at risk and did not participate in the December consultation process.

The separate breach of contract claim for an enhanced redundancy payment was dismissed. The tribunal accepted that the redundancy policy drafted by the claimant had not been approved by the remuneration committee or adopted by the board, its document history suggested that it was not active, and it expressly stated that it was non-contractual. The relevant clause also appeared to require two years’ service, which the claimant did not have when her employment ended.

No tribunal award was made. Before the proceedings, the claimant had received £14,438 in lieu of three months’ notice, a £2,100 payment equivalent to statutory redundancy pay despite having less than two years’ service, and use of her company car until the end of March 2025; these were not remedies awarded by the tribunal.