Claimant v Orchard Children Homes Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found that the complaint of automatic unfair dismissal for making a protected disclosure was not well-founded. The tribunal was not satisfied that the dismissal was for the reason of making protected disclosures under whistleblowing legislation.
The tribunal found that the complaint of being subjected to a detriment for making a protected disclosure was not well-founded. The tribunal determined that the claimant was not subjected to detriment by reason of making protected disclosures under whistleblowing legislation.
Facts
Michael Coyle brought claims of automatic unfair dismissal and detriment for making protected disclosures (whistleblowing) against his former employer, Orchard Children Homes Limited, a children's residential care provider. The case was heard over five days in June 2025, with Coyle representing himself and the respondent represented by a litigation consultant. The tribunal heard evidence and submissions on whether the claimant had made qualifying protected disclosures and whether his dismissal or any treatment he received was by reason of those disclosures.
Decision
The tribunal unanimously dismissed both claims. It found that the complaint of automatic unfair dismissal for making a protected disclosure was not well-founded, concluding that the dismissal was not because the claimant had made protected disclosures. Similarly, the complaint of detriment for whistleblowing was rejected as the tribunal was not satisfied that any treatment amounted to detriment by reason of making protected disclosures.
Practical note
Claimants in whistleblowing cases must establish both that they made qualifying protected disclosures and that their dismissal or detrimental treatment was materially influenced by those disclosures, not merely that disclosures were made prior to dismissal.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 6002471/2023
- Decision date
- 13 June 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 5
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- healthcare
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- lay rep
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No