Claimant v Michels Ventures 3 Limited T/a DoubleTree by Hilton Manchester Airport

The tribunal found the claimant had no reasonable prospect of establishing that his disclosure on 3 October 2023 was a qualifying protected disclosure. The disclosure lacked public interest (it concerned a personal matter about an alleged affair affecting him and his wife) and he could not establish he reasonably believed it showed a breach of legal obligation. The disclosure was made in the context of explaining a sickness absence, not reporting wrongdoing. Additionally, the respondent's performance concerns predated any alleged disclosure.

The tribunal found the claimant had no reasonable prospect of establishing that what he said on 3 October 2023 constituted a qualifying protected disclosure under s.43B ERA 1996. He did not disclose information that he could reasonably believe tended to show a breach of legal obligation, and the disclosure was not made in the public interest. The context was a return-to-work meeting explaining personal circumstances and injury, not raising concerns about wrongdoing affecting others or the employer's business.

The claim for public interest disclosure detriment was struck out because the claimant could not establish he made a protected disclosure. Additionally, the alleged detriments (performance issues raised on 17 October 2023) related to matters the respondent had wanted to address since August 2023, before any alleged disclosure, so there was no causal link between any disclosure and the detriment.