Claimant v Morrison Energy Services Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found the claimant was automatically unfairly dismissed contrary to section 103A Employment Rights Act 1996, meaning the dismissal was because the claimant made protected disclosures (whistleblowing). The tribunal accepted that the reason for dismissal was the protected disclosures made by the claimant.
The tribunal upheld six specific detriment complaints (4b, 4c, 4d, 4e, 4f, 4g) under section 47B Employment Rights Act 1996. The claimant was subjected to detrimental treatment by the respondent because he had made protected disclosures. The tribunal found these detriments were causally linked to the whistleblowing.
Facts
Mr Estcourt was employed by Morrison Energy Services Limited. He made protected disclosures (whistleblowing) to his employer. Following these disclosures, he was subjected to multiple detriments by the respondent and was ultimately dismissed. The tribunal heard evidence over five days and found that both the detriments and the dismissal were causally connected to the protected disclosures he had made.
Decision
The tribunal found in favour of the claimant on all claims. The dismissal was automatically unfair under section 103A ERA 1996 as it was because of protected disclosures. Six specific detriments were also upheld under section 47B ERA 1996. A separate remedy hearing will determine compensation.
Practical note
Employers who dismiss or subject employees to detriment because of whistleblowing face automatic unfair dismissal claims with no service requirement and potentially uncapped compensation.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 3320594/2021
- Decision date
- 5 August 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 5
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- energy
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- lay rep
Claimant representation
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister