Claimant v The Millwall Football and Athletic Company
Outcome
Individual claims
The respondent terminated the contract by telephone without giving 28 days written notice as required by the contract. The tribunal awarded damages equal to four weeks' pay (£553.04) less £280 already paid, resulting in a shortfall of £273.04.
The tribunal found that the decision not to renew the claimant's contract was due to the acrimonious relationship with his line manager and performance concerns, not because he made protected disclosures about players' health and welfare. The relationship had already deteriorated significantly before the first protected disclosure, and the decision-maker did not object to the disclosures themselves.
Although the claimant made two protected disclosures (about Player A's Osgood Schlatter's disease and Player B's behavioural problems), the tribunal found these were not a material cause of the non-renewal of his contract. The relationship breakdown and performance concerns pre-dated the disclosures, and management responded positively to the welfare concerns when raised.
Facts
The claimant worked part-time as a football coach for Millwall FC from November 2022 to June 2023. He raised concerns about two players' health and welfare (protected disclosures). His relationship with his line manager Mr Jones deteriorated, including public disagreements at matches. The Academy Head of Coaching (Mr Mlinar) decided not to renew the claimant's contract, citing the dysfunctional relationship and performance concerns. The claimant was terminated by phone without written notice as required by contract.
Decision
The tribunal dismissed the whistleblowing detriment claim, finding the non-renewal was due to the acrimonious relationship and performance issues that pre-dated the protected disclosures, not the disclosures themselves. However, the breach of contract claim succeeded as the respondent failed to give proper written notice. The tribunal also awarded four weeks' pay under section 38 EA 2002 for failing to provide a compliant written statement of particulars.
Practical note
Even where protected disclosures are made, a whistleblowing claim will fail if the tribunal finds the detriment was caused by other factors (here, relationship breakdown and performance concerns) that existed independently; however, procedural failures in termination (lack of written notice) and statutory non-compliance (missing employment particulars) remain actionable.
Award breakdown
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 2305074/2023
- Decision date
- 20 August 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 3
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- professional services
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- Part-time coach (U15s and U16s squads)
- Service
- 7 months
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No