Cases2501166/2021

Claimant v Durham University

19 November 2025Before Employment Judge SE LangridgeNewcastle upon Tynehybrid

Outcome

Claimant fails

Individual claims

Whistleblowingsucceeded

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

Shamoon v Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary [2003] ICR 337Williams v Brown UKEAT/0044/19Ibrahim v HCA International [2019] EWCA Civ 207NHS Manchester v Fecitt [2012] IRLR 64Babula v Waltham Forest College 2007 ICR 1026Darnton v University of Surrey [2003] IRLR 133Korashi v Abertawe Bro Morgannwg University Local Health Board [2012] IRLR 4Blackbay Ventures Ltd v Gahir [2014] ICR 747Eiger Securities LLP v Korshunova [2017] IRLR 115Chesterton Global Ltd v Nurmohamed [2018] ICR 731

Statutes

ERA 1996 s.43AERA 1996 s.43BERA 1996 s.43CERA 1996 s.47BERA 1996 s.48

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