Claimant v London Underground Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found 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 as a result of making protected disclosures.
The tribunal found that the automatic unfair dismissal claim arising from the claimant having reportedly raised protected disclosures was unfounded. The respondent did not dismiss the claimant because he made protected disclosures.
The tribunal found the ordinary unfair dismissal complaint was unfounded. The respondent had a fair reason for dismissal and followed a fair procedure, or the dismissal fell within the band of reasonable responses.
Facts
Mr Donnan was employed by London Underground Ltd and was dismissed from his employment. He claimed he made protected disclosures (whistleblowing) and was subjected to detriments and ultimately dismissed because of those disclosures. The case was heard over nine days in a hybrid format with both in-person and remote attendance.
Decision
The tribunal unanimously dismissed all of the claimant's complaints. They found he was not subjected to detriments for making protected disclosures, was not automatically unfairly dismissed for whistleblowing, and was not ordinarily unfairly dismissed. The tribunal was satisfied the respondent had legitimate reasons for its actions.
Practical note
A whistleblowing claim will fail if the claimant cannot establish both that protected disclosures were made and that any detriments or dismissal were causally linked to those disclosures.
Case details
- Case number
- 2220735/2024
- Decision date
- 6 October 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 9
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- transport
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Claimant representation
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- solicitor