Claimant v Vanguard Learning Trust
Outcome
Individual claims
This was a preliminary hearing on the respondent's application to strike out the whistleblowing claims under sections 47B and 103A ERA 1996. The tribunal dismissed the strike-out application, finding that core facts were in dispute regarding whether the claimant reasonably believed his disclosures were in the public interest and tended to show breaches of legal obligations. Evidence must be heard at final hearing.
Detriment claims under section 47B ERA 1996 remain to be determined at final hearing following dismissal of the strike-out application. The tribunal found that factual disputes, including whether the respondent received the second disclosure, must be resolved by hearing evidence.
Automatic unfair dismissal claim under section 103A ERA 1996 remains to be determined at final hearing following dismissal of the strike-out application. The tribunal concluded it was not possible to determine prospects of success without hearing evidence from the claimant.
Facts
The claimant made disclosures in April 2023 to the Chair of Governors and in September 2023 to external bodies including the DfE and NSPCC, alleging that school staff had posted images of children on personal Twitter accounts without proper investigation, that evidence was instructed to be deleted, and that concerns about a male staff member spending time with a female student outside school were not properly investigated and staff were threatened with disciplinary action if they discussed the matter. The respondent applied to strike out the whistleblowing claims or alternatively for a deposit order, arguing the claimant had no or little prospects of establishing the disclosures were qualifying disclosures.
Decision
The tribunal dismissed both the strike-out and deposit order applications. Employment Judge Taft held that core facts were in dispute, including whether the claimant reasonably believed his disclosures were in the public interest and tended to show breaches of legal obligations, and whether the respondent received the second disclosure. Following Cox v Adecco and Ishmail, these factual disputes must be resolved by hearing evidence at a full merits hearing, making it inappropriate to strike out or order a deposit at this preliminary stage.
Practical note
Even where a respondent challenges the reasonableness of a whistleblower's belief that disclosures were in the public interest or showed legal breaches, strike-out or deposit orders will be refused where core facts are disputed and can only be properly tested through hearing evidence at a full merits hearing.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 6010040/2024
- Decision date
- 17 November 2025
- Hearing type
- preliminary
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- education
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No