Claimant v Serious Fraud Office
Outcome
Individual claims
Tribunal found that the claimant did not make qualifying protected disclosures. The statements relied upon were expressions of opinion and disagreement with a management directive, not disclosures of information with sufficient factual content as required by law. The claimant lacked a reasonable belief he was disclosing a breach of legal obligation. Further, the tribunal found the alleged detriments were not established on the balance of probabilities.
Claimant alleged breach in relation to termination of temporary promotion payments. Tribunal found the termination of the temporary promotion was lawful and not related to any protected disclosures. When the temporary promotion ended, entitlement to enhanced contractual rights ended lawfully. The temporary promotion was always intended to be finite and was subject to defined contractual conditions.
Claimant alleged unlawful deduction of wages arising from termination of temporary promotion payments (£993.26 per month plus pension contributions of £268.18 per month). Tribunal found these payments lawfully ceased when the temporary promotion ended on 1 December 2023. The decision to end the temporary promotion was made for legitimate operational reasons unconnected to any alleged protected disclosures.
Facts
Claimant, a senior investigator at the Serious Fraud Office, was temporarily promoted to Principal Investigator from December 2022 to November 2023. On 31 October 2023, his line manager Mr McLaughlin gave guidance at a disclosure meeting about exercising caution when writing critical emails on the case file. The claimant disagreed, believing the instruction risked contravening disclosure obligations under CPIA 1996. His temporary promotion ended on 1 December 2023. The claimant alleged this was victimisation for whistleblowing and brought claims of detriment, breach of contract, and unlawful deduction of wages.
Decision
The tribunal dismissed all claims. The claimant's statements during and after the 31 October meeting were expressions of opinion and disagreement with a management directive, not qualifying protected disclosures requiring factual information. The tribunal found the decision to end the temporary promotion was made by the Head of Division for legitimate operational reasons (improved staffing, completion of business case justification) unconnected to any alleged disclosures. The claimant failed to prove any detriments on the balance of probabilities.
Practical note
A disagreement with a management instruction, even on legal compliance grounds, does not constitute a protected disclosure unless it conveys sufficient factual information tending to show a breach of legal obligation—mere expression of opinion or theoretical concerns is insufficient under ERA 1996 s.43B.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 2218893/2024
- Decision date
- 3 October 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 10
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- public sector
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- Senior Investigator (SEO grade)
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No