Claimant v FreemantleMedia Group Ltd
Outcome
Individual claims
Claim under Fixed Term Employees Regulations dismissed for want of jurisdiction as tribunal found claimant was not an employee of the respondent following preliminary hearing before EJ Adkin in June 2025.
Unfair dismissal claim dismissed for want of jurisdiction as tribunal found claimant was not an employee of the respondent following preliminary hearing before EJ Adkin in June 2025.
Automatically unfair dismissal (whistleblowing) claim dismissed for want of jurisdiction as tribunal found claimant was not an employee of the respondent following preliminary hearing before EJ Adkin in June 2025.
All 18 whistleblowing detriment complaints struck out as presented out of time. Tribunal found it was reasonably practicable for claimant to have presented claims in time. Claimant did not properly establish why he relied on ACAS advice about unfair dismissal time limits for detriment claims. Even if claims had been in time, tribunal would have found none of the alleged protected disclosures were qualifying disclosures and all detriment complaints would have failed on their merits.
Facts
Claimant was a freelance Post Production Supervisor engaged by respondent television production company on multiple fixed-term Schedule D contracts since 2012. In September 2023 he queried why freelancers received less generous pension than permanent staff. He made formal complaint in December 2023 alleging breach of Fixed Term Employees Regulations and made two tribunal claims in February and August 2024 alleging various protected disclosures and 18 acts of whistleblowing detriment, culminating in non-renewal of his contract in April 2024. Respondent defended claims, arguing claimant was self-employed freelancer and non-renewal was due to need to recover salary of employed staff member (Mr Hoskins) from production budget in difficult economic climate.
Decision
Tribunal dismissed all claims. Following earlier preliminary hearing finding claimant was not employee, claims under FTE Regulations and for unfair dismissal dismissed for want of jurisdiction. All whistleblowing detriment claims struck out as out of time and it was reasonably practicable to have presented them in time. Tribunal found even if in time, none of alleged disclosures were qualifying protected disclosures and all detriment allegations would have failed on merits. Tribunal found decision not to renew contract was genuine cost-saving measure unrelated to any alleged disclosures.
Practical note
Freelancers alleging whistleblowing detriment must ensure claims are presented in time and cannot rely on general ACAS advice about unfair dismissal time limits; furthermore, allegations that an employer is in breach of employment law do not automatically constitute protected disclosures unless they meet the strict statutory tests including reasonable belief and public interest.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 2201953/2024
- Decision date
- 17 December 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 6
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- media
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- Post Production Supervisor
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No