Claimant v Durham University
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found that the claimants made a protected disclosure in their letter of 19 May 2020, which disclosed information about breaches of the University's Learning and Teaching Handbook regarding PhD examination procedures. The disclosure was made in the reasonable belief that it was in the public interest and tended to show breaches of legal obligations. The tribunal found that both claimants were subjected to various detriments on the ground of making this protected disclosure, including accusations of lying, allegations of bullying a student, exclusion from communications, and reputational damage. However, the claims were dismissed because they were brought outside the statutory three-month time limit and it was reasonably practicable for the claimants to have brought their claims in time.
Facts
Two academic staff at Durham University raised concerns about alleged breaches of the University's Learning and Teaching Handbook in relation to the PhD examination process of a student they supervised. Their relationship with the student had broken down. They made a series of disclosures between November 2019 and June 2020, including to the University and to external bodies in Pakistan where the student claimed to have been awarded his PhD. The University conducted disciplinary investigations into the claimants' conduct in writing to external bodies. Senior managers, including the Head of Economics Department and the Executive Dean, subjected the claimants to various forms of detrimental treatment including accusations of lying, allegations of bullying, exclusion from communications, and attempts to restrict secondary employment.
Decision
The tribunal found that the claimants made a protected disclosure on 19 May 2020 about breaches of the Learning and Teaching Handbook. The tribunal upheld 10 of the alleged detriments, finding that various acts of detrimental treatment by senior managers were materially influenced by the protected disclosure. However, the claims were dismissed because they were brought outside the three-month statutory time limit, and it was reasonably practicable for the claimants to have brought their claims in time despite their engagement with internal processes and the impact on Dr Aftab's health.
Practical note
Even where whistleblowing detriments are established on the merits, claims will fail if brought outside the strict three-month time limit where it was reasonably practicable to claim earlier - engagement with internal processes alone is insufficient justification for delay, and claimants have a responsibility to seek advice about their legal rights.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 2501166/2021
- Decision date
- 19 November 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 15
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- education
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- Academic staff
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No