Claimant v Milton Keynes City Council
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found that while the claimant made protected disclosures in February 2020 regarding breach of listed building consent, the dismissal was not because of those disclosures. There was a genuine redundancy situation and the tribunal accepted that Miss Lewis, the decision maker, did not consider the vent issue a major concern and it did not influence her decision to dismiss or select the claimant for redundancy. The claimant failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that the protected disclosures were the sole or principal reason for dismissal or selection for redundancy.
The tribunal accepted the claimant made protected disclosures on 4 February 2020 when he disclosed to his line manager that building works to Milton Keynes Library breached listed building consent. The tribunal found the claimant reasonably believed this was in the public interest and showed breach of legal obligations. However, the claim failed because the tribunal concluded these disclosures were not the reason or principal reason for the claimant's dismissal or selection for redundancy.
Facts
The claimant worked for Milton Keynes City Council from December 2019 to January 2021 as Built Asset Lead. In February 2020, he discovered and reported to his line manager that an air vent had been installed on the listed Milton Keynes Library building in breach of listed building consent, a potential criminal offence. Despite raising the issue repeatedly, the respondent made slow progress on resolving it. In September 2020, the respondent proposed a restructure to remove a layer of management, placing the claimant at risk of redundancy. He was dismissed for redundancy on 23 November 2020 after failing to secure the new Asset Maintenance Lead role.
Decision
The tribunal accepted the claimant made protected disclosures in February 2020 about the unlawful building works. However, it found there was a genuine redundancy situation and that the decision maker, Miss Lewis, did not consider the vent issue a major concern. The tribunal concluded the claimant failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that the protected disclosures were the sole or principal reason for his dismissal or selection for redundancy. The claim for automatically unfair dismissal therefore failed.
Practical note
Even where protected disclosures are established, a claimant with less than two years' service must prove the disclosures were the principal reason for dismissal, and a genuine redundancy situation combined with evidence the decision maker considered the disclosure relatively minor can defeat such a claim.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 3305884/2021
- Decision date
- 26 September 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 3
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- public sector
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- Built Asset Lead
- Service
- 1 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No