Case 8000892/2025 · Employment Tribunal
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 8000892/2025 Held in Aberdeen on 3, & October 2025 Employment Judge J M Hendry Mr A Harbhajanka v Respondent — 2025
- Case reference
- 8000892/2025
- Decision date
- 16 December 2025
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Venue
- Aberdeen
Parties
1 namedClaimant
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 8000892/2025 Held in Aberdeen on 3, & October 2025 Employment Judge J M Hendry Mr A Harbhajanka
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant brought detriment complaints said to arise from two alleged protected disclosures. The tribunal applied s.43B ERA 1996 and the authorities it cited, including Williams v Michelle Brown, Kilraine v London Borough of Wandsworth, Chesterton Global Ltd v Nurmohamed, Twist DX v Armes and Kraus v Penna, to decide whether the claimant had made qualifying disclosures in June 2022 and December 2023.
On the Diadem matter, the claimant emailed Julian Rippiner on 26 June 2022 about the use of non-sour-resistant casing and said the operator's well design did not meet Shell's process safety standards. The tribunal accepted that the claimant genuinely held concerns about offshore safety and the marine environment, but found that the communication did not disclose information tending to show that Shell had breached a legal obligation, endangered health and safety, damaged the environment, or deliberately concealed such matters. It found the issue was being actively addressed by senior managers, with escalation to the regulator being treated as a last resort, and characterised the dispute as one about tactics rather than concealment or wrongdoing.
On the Mars GDP issue, the claimant objected on 5 December 2023 to moving reference to the Energy Profits Levy extension out of the risks section of the document. The tribunal found that the GDP remained transparent about the EPL issue, that any oral challenge was not sufficiently clear to amount to a qualifying disclosure, and that there was no proper evidential basis for allegations of fraudulent misrepresentation, breach of Companies Act duties, or deliberate concealment. It concluded that this was again a difference of opinion about how the risk should be presented, not a protected disclosure. Because the detriment claims depended on those alleged disclosures, the tribunal dismissed the case and no award was made.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | The tribunal rejected the claimant's two alleged protected disclosures: the 26 June 2022 email to Julian Rippiner about the Diadem sour casing issue and the 5 December 2023 email/meeting about the Mars GDP and EPL reference. It held that neither communication amounted to a protected disclosure under s.43B ERA 1996, so the detriment claim failed. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
6 references- s.43B ERA 1996
- Williams v Michelle Brown
- Kilraine v London Borough of Wandsworth
- Chesterton Global Ltd v Nurmohamed
- Twist DX v Armes
- Kraus v Penna
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.