Claimant v United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found that while the claimant disclosed information in November 2022 and March 2023 emails about alleged plagiarism and failure to investigate under UKRI policy, and reasonably believed it showed a breach of legal obligation, the claimant did not reasonably believe the disclosures were in the public interest. The matters were personal IP concerns, not public interest issues. The first ET claim was not a qualifying disclosure as it was merely an allegation, not information. All disclosures failed the public interest test.
Even if the disclosures had been protected, the tribunal found no causal link between them and the termination of the claimant's assignment. The six witnesses involved in the termination decision had no knowledge of the alleged disclosures. They knew about the ongoing IP dispute but not the specific whistleblowing emails or ET claim. The respondent showed the detriment was in no sense whatsoever connected to any protected disclosures.
Facts
The claimant, a mechanical engineer, worked for the respondent nuclear research facility through agencies over many years. He engaged in a long-running intellectual property dispute claiming he designed an 'RF Window' used by the respondent without permission. In November 2022 and March 2023 he sent emails to HR alleging plagiarism, fraud and failure to investigate. His agency assignment was terminated in September 2024, which he claimed was because of these disclosures and an earlier ET claim.
Decision
The tribunal found that while the November 2022 and March 2023 emails disclosed information showing potential breach of legal obligation, they were not made in the reasonable belief they were in the public interest — they concerned the claimant's personal IP dispute. The first ET claim was not a qualifying disclosure. Even if they were protected disclosures, the decision-makers had no knowledge of them, so there was no causal link to the detriment.
Practical note
A worker's disclosure about their own intellectual property dispute with a public body does not satisfy the public interest test under s.43B ERA, even where the body receives public funding, if the matter is fundamentally personal rather than of wider public concern.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 3304909/2023
- Decision date
- 31 October 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 4
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- energy
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- Mechanical Engineer specialising in nuclear fusion research
- Service
- 1 months
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No