Claimant v Motorlink Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found that the claimant did not make a public interest disclosure, which is a prerequisite for an automatic unfair dismissal claim under s.103A ERA 1996. Without a qualifying protected disclosure, the claim could not succeed.
The tribunal determined that the claimant did not make a public interest disclosure. As a public interest disclosure is the foundation of a whistleblowing detriment claim under ss.47B and 48 ERA 1996, the claim against both the first respondent and Mr Grainger failed.
The claim for breach of contract (notice pay) against the first respondent was dismissed. The tribunal did not find in favour of the claimant on this contractual claim.
Facts
Mr Nicolescu brought claims against Motorlink Limited and two individual respondents alleging automatic unfair dismissal and detriment on the grounds of whistleblowing, along with a breach of contract claim for notice pay. The claims against Mr Crone were withdrawn. The central issue was whether the claimant had made a qualifying public interest disclosure.
Decision
The tribunal dismissed all claims. The fundamental finding was that the claimant did not make a public interest disclosure. Without a qualifying protected disclosure, the automatic unfair dismissal claim under s.103A and the whistleblowing detriment claims under ss.47B and 48 could not succeed. The breach of contract claim for notice pay also failed.
Practical note
Establishing that a qualifying public interest disclosure was made is an essential prerequisite to any whistleblowing claim, and failure to meet this threshold will result in dismissal of all related claims.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 2312503/2024
- Decision date
- 1 October 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- transport
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- lay rep
Claimant representation
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- lay rep