Claimant v Shell UK Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found that the claimant's email of 26 June 2022 to Mr Julian Rippiner did not amount to a protected disclosure under s.43B ERA 1996. The tribunal concluded the claimant could not have genuinely and reasonably believed that the disclosure showed wrongdoing or breach of legal obligations given that senior managers were actively addressing the well casing issue and planned escalation to the regulator if necessary.
The tribunal found that the claimant's actions in raising the issue of the editing of the EPL (Energy Profits Levy) with Mr Julian Rippiner on 5 December 2023 (both orally and by email) did not amount to a protected disclosure. The tribunal concluded there was no disclosure of wrongdoing or breach of legal obligation, and that this appeared to be a genuine difference of opinion rather than concealment or fraud. The tribunal found the claimant's legal arguments (fraudulent misrepresentation, breach of Companies Act duties, breach of Shell General Business Principles) to have the hallmark of afterthoughts and were not reflected in what was said or written at the time.
Facts
The claimant, a commercial contracts specialist at Shell UK, made two alleged protected disclosures. First, in June 2022, he raised concerns that a drilling project (Diadem) was using standard steel casing rather than H2S-resistant 'sour steel' casing as required by Shell's internal standards, potentially creating a safety risk. Second, in December 2023, he objected to the removal of references to Energy Profits Levy (EPL) extension risk from an internal investment proposal document (Mars GDP), believing this concealed material financial risk from decision-makers. In both cases, he claimed he suffered detriments as a result of these disclosures.
Decision
The tribunal found that neither alleged disclosure constituted a protected disclosure under s.43B ERA 1996. On the first disclosure, the tribunal concluded the respondent was actively addressing the well casing issue and had not breached any legal obligations or concealed safety risks. On the second disclosure, the tribunal found no wrongdoing or breach of legal obligation, viewing it as a genuine difference of professional opinion. The claims for detriment therefore fell to be dismissed.
Practical note
A disclosure will not be protected merely because an employee genuinely disagrees with management's approach or timing on a safety or financial matter; there must be a reasonable belief that the disclosure tends to show wrongdoing or breach of legal obligation, and professional disagreements over tactics or document presentation are unlikely to meet this threshold.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 8000892/2025
- Decision date
- 16 December 2025
- Hearing type
- preliminary
- Hearing days
- 3
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Name
- Shell UK Limited
- Sector
- energy
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- solicitor
Employment details
- Role
- NBD Deal Delivery Adviser
Claimant representation
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister