ETZ 4(WR) EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 8002735/2025 Hearing Held at Glasgow on June 2026 Employment Judge: M A Macleod Mr D Sutherland v Park’s of Hamilton (Townhead Garage) Limited — 2026

Mr Sutherland claimed that Park’s of Hamilton (Townhead Garage) Limited automatically unfairly dismissed him and subjected him to detriments because of a protected disclosure. The alleged disclosure was his statement to General Manager Dominic Cameron on 4 July 2025 that he felt Colin Graham and William Cumming were blackmailing him by linking repayment of an outstanding sum from his previous employment to his ability to drive company vehicles.

Applying the protected-disclosure requirements in section 43B of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and the approach in Blackbay Ventures Ltd (t/a Chemistree) v Gahir, the Tribunal found that Mr Sutherland had not made a protected disclosure. His description changed during the conversation between blackmail, strongarming and bullying, and he did not know at the time whether blackmail was a criminal offence. The Tribunal found that he had made an allegation of unfair treatment rather than disclosed information tending to show that a criminal offence had occurred, and that he did not hold the required reasonable belief.

The Tribunal accepted Mr Graham's evidence that the respondent raised an outstanding debt which Mr Sutherland had previously acknowledged through a repayment agreement and sought to reach an accommodation about repayment. It found that the respondent did not threaten dismissal during the 4 July meeting and that the circumstances fell short of the asserted blackmail. The Tribunal expressly did not determine whether the contractual obligation remained enforceable.

The Tribunal also considered causation on the alternative assumption that a protected disclosure had been made. It found that Mr Sutherland was dismissed on 7 July 2025 because of a combination of his refusal to contemplate repayment of the acknowledged debt, Mr Graham's perception of his approach during their meeting, concerns reported about his performance and attitude, and the respondent's resulting lack of trust and confidence. It found that the allegation of blackmail was not the reason or principal reason for dismissal.

The Tribunal further found that the conversations on 4 and 7 July 2025 were not detriments imposed because of a protected disclosure. All claims were dismissed, and the judgment made no monetary award.