Claimant v Savills Management Resources Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
Tribunal found three protected disclosures made by the claimant in January 2024 (fire alarm defects, HV system faults, lack of HV procedures). However, tribunal concluded that the sole reason for dismissal was poor performance during probation, not the protected disclosures. Performance concerns pre-dated the disclosures and were documented from January 2024 onwards.
While the tribunal found three qualifying and protected disclosures under s43B ERA (fire alarm issues, HV system safety concerns, lack of HV procedures), the claim under s103A failed because the tribunal concluded the protected disclosures were not the sole or principal reason for dismissal. The reason was performance during probation.
Facts
Claimant was employed as Technical Services Director at St James Quarter Edinburgh from September 2023, on an £80,000 salary with 6-month probation. He raised concerns in January 2024 about fire alarm defects, high voltage system safety, and lack of HV procedures. His line manager became concerned about his performance from early January 2024, citing missed deadlines, poor preparation for meetings, failure to prioritise, and inability to accept feedback. Following two difficult meetings in late January 2024, his employment was terminated on 6 February 2024 during probation.
Decision
The tribunal found the claimant made three protected disclosures in January 2024 and was designated to carry out health and safety activities. However, both claims failed because the tribunal concluded the sole reason for dismissal was poor performance during probation, not the protected disclosures or health and safety activities. Performance concerns pre-dated the disclosures and were consistently documented.
Practical note
Even where protected disclosures are established, automatic unfair dismissal claims will fail if the employer can demonstrate a genuine, documented performance-based reason for dismissal that pre-dates and is independent of the disclosures, particularly during a probationary period.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 8000957/2024
- Decision date
- 5 September 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 8
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- professional services
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- Technical Services Director
- Salary band
- £80,000–£100,000
- Service
- 5 months
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No