Claimant v Nissan Motor Manufacturing (UK) Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found the claimant unlikely to establish employee status, that his communications were workplace discussions expressing opinions rather than disclosures of 'information' within s.43B ERA 1996, that he could not show reasonable belief at the time of any legal breach, and that documents indicated performance and attitude issues rather than protected disclosures were the reason for termination. The interim relief application failed as the claimant did not demonstrate a 'pretty good chance' of success.
Tribunal found it highly unlikely the claimant could show he made qualifying disclosures under s.43B ERA 1996. The tribunal concluded his concerns about cost transparency and procurement practices were workplace discussions expressing his opinions about how tasks should be divided, not disclosures of information tending to show breach of legal obligations. The legal obligations cited appeared to be a retrospective attempt to frame the issues.
Facts
Claimant was a senior engineer working on car structure design, allegedly supplied to Nissan through an agency arrangement with Morson Human Resources. He raised concerns about cost transparency and procurement practices, questioning supplier quotations and purchase decisions. Nissan managers complained about his behaviour and attitude from late 2024 onwards, with emails describing degradation in performance, loss of motivation, and failure to respect other teams' roles. His engagement was terminated on 14 July 2025, which he claimed was due to whistleblowing. He applied for interim relief.
Decision
The tribunal refused interim relief, finding the claimant unlikely to succeed at a full hearing. He faced significant hurdles: establishing employee status (appearing to be an agency contractor), showing he made qualifying disclosures of 'information' rather than expressing workplace opinions, and proving reasonable belief in legal breaches at the time. Evidence suggested performance and conduct issues were the real reason for termination, not protected disclosures.
Practical note
Interim relief applications for whistleblowing dismissals face a high bar: workplace complaints about business practices and inefficiencies will not constitute protected disclosures unless they amount to disclosure of information tending to show specific legal breaches, and employment status must also be established.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 6027176/2025
- Decision date
- 15 December 2025
- Hearing type
- interim relief
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- manufacturing
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- Senior Engineer (design of car structure)
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No