Claimant v Covea Insurance Services Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found that the complaint of being subjected to detriment for making a protected disclosure was not well-founded. The claimant failed to establish that he suffered detriments on the ground that he had made qualifying protected disclosures.
The tribunal found that the complaint of automatic unfair dismissal under s103A of the Employment Rights Act 1996 was not well-founded. The claimant did not establish that the principal reason for dismissal was that he had made protected disclosures.
The tribunal found that the complaint of constructive unfair dismissal was not well-founded. The claimant did not establish that there was a fundamental breach of contract by the respondent entitling him to resign, or that any such resignation was in response to the alleged breach.
Facts
Stuart Graham brought claims against his former employers Covea Insurance Services Limited and Covea Insurance PLC, as well as two individual respondents Paul Freer and John Allen. He alleged he had made protected disclosures (whistleblowing) and was subjected to detriments as a result. He also claimed he was constructively and automatically unfairly dismissed under whistleblowing provisions. The case proceeded to a five-day full merits hearing before a full tribunal panel.
Decision
The tribunal unanimously dismissed all three claims. The tribunal found that the claimant had not established that he suffered detriments on the ground of making protected disclosures, that the principal reason for dismissal was not protected disclosures, and that he had not established the elements necessary for constructive dismissal.
Practical note
A claimant alleging whistleblowing detriments and automatic unfair dismissal must establish a clear causal link between protected disclosures and the treatment complained of; mere assertions are insufficient without supporting evidence.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 3304968/2023
- Decision date
- 14 November 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 5
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- financial services
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Claimant representation
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister