Claimant v SOAS University of London
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found that none of the disclosures made by the Claimant were qualifying protected disclosures within the meaning of section 43B of the Employment Rights Act 1996. It was not reasonable to believe that the information disclosed tended to show the alleged failures (fabrication of ethics report). Therefore, the automatic unfair dismissal claim under section 103A failed.
As no protected disclosure was established, the detriment claims under section 47B of the Employment Rights Act 1996 failed. The tribunal also found that, even if there had been protected disclosures, many of the alleged detriments were not made out, and where they were (e.g. delay in responding to grievance, lack of procedural fairness at dismissal), the alleged protected disclosures were not more than a trivial cause.
The Claimant received three months' notice pay exceeding her contractual entitlement. A mobility allowance was belatedly paid on 30 April 2025. The tribunal found no other outstanding sums were due and the arrears of pay complaint under section 13 ERA failed.
Facts
Dr Jue Jiang was a post-doctoral Marie Curie Research Fellow researching Chinese criminal justice, funded by the European Commission. She transferred from Newcastle University to SOAS in September 2022 due to a breakdown in her supervisory relationship. At SOAS, her relationship with her new supervisor Dr Grace Mou also broke down. The Claimant alleged that an ethics approval letter dated 7 June 2023 was fabricated. She fell significantly behind on her research deliverables. The EC Funder repeatedly chased for progress updates. The Claimant was dismissed on 19 October 2023 for breakdown in trust and confidence and failure to demonstrate progress.
Decision
The tribunal dismissed all claims. It found that none of the Claimant's six alleged disclosures were qualifying protected disclosures because it was not reasonable for her to believe the information disclosed tended to show the relevant failures. The Claimant had jumped to conclusions about fabrication without basic investigation. The automatic unfair dismissal and detriment claims therefore failed. The unlawful deduction of wages claim also failed as the Claimant received more notice pay than contractually due.
Practical note
A whistleblowing claim will fail if the claimant does not hold a reasonable belief that their disclosure tends to show the alleged wrongdoing, even if they genuinely believe it; making serious allegations (e.g. fabrication) without basic enquiry or investigation can render a belief unreasonable.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 2201682/2024
- Decision date
- 28 July 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 5
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- education
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- Marie Curie Research Fellow
- Service
- 1 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No