Claimant v Imperial College of Science, Technology and Medicine
Outcome
Individual claims
Tribunal found Professor Knopfel did not make qualifying protected disclosures. His emails did not disclose information but rather made allegations and expressed grievances. The tribunal held he did not reasonably believe his disclosures tended to show relevant failures or were in the public interest.
Professor Knopfel's purported protected disclosures (PD1-PD5) failed because they did not amount to disclosures of information but were allegations, complaints or requests for investigation. The tribunal found he did not have a reasonable belief that the disclosures tended to show the relevant failures or were made in the public interest.
Because Professor Knopfel did not make qualifying protected disclosures, the detriment claims based on those disclosures failed. The tribunal found various alleged detriments either did not occur, were not connected to any protected disclosure, or were justified responses to his conduct.
Professor Knopfel was dismissed for gross misconduct following multiple upheld allegations of bullying and harassment. The tribunal found the dismissal was fair, the investigation was reasonable, and the sanction of dismissal fell within the band of reasonable responses.
Dr Song was not constructively dismissed. Although the tribunal found some unfair criticisms by Professor Lightstone amounted to a breach of trust and confidence, Dr Song affirmed her contract by continuing as companion for months and not resigning at that point. The real reason for her resignation was to take up new employment in Singapore.
Dr Song's claims regarding protected disclosures ultimately failed on constructive dismissal, but her detriment claims based on whistleblowing failed because the tribunal found she did not make qualifying protected disclosures (her complaints were requests for investigation rather than information disclosure).
Two of Dr Song's detriment claims under s.12 ERA 1999 succeeded: (6.2.1) unfair allegations made by Professor Lightstone in formal letters criticising her conduct as Professor Knopfel's companion, and (6.2.4) continued claims by Professor Lightstone denouncing Dr Song after she resigned from the disciplinary process. These detriments arose because she acted as a companion.
Facts
Professor Knopfel, a senior academic at Imperial College, was dismissed for gross misconduct following complaints of bullying and harassment and a research misconduct investigation. Dr Song, his research associate and line report, acted as his companion at disciplinary hearings and made a grievance about her treatment. She later resigned to take up employment in Singapore. Both claimed they made protected disclosures about grant mismanagement, research misconduct, and procedural failures and were subjected to detriments and dismissed as a result. The tribunal heard nine days of evidence involving complex overlapping complaints and investigations spanning 2019-2023.
Decision
The tribunal dismissed all of Professor Knopfel's claims, finding he did not make protected disclosures and his dismissal for bullying and harassment was fair. Dr Song's constructive dismissal claim failed as she resigned to take new employment, not due to breaches of contract. However, two of her detriment claims succeeded: unfair criticisms by the disciplinary panel chair about her conduct as Professor Knopfel's companion amounted to detriments under s.12 ERA 1999. A remedy hearing will follow for these successful claims.
Practical note
Expressing grievances or making allegations, even if raising serious concerns, does not constitute a protected disclosure unless it discloses information; and criticism of a companion's conduct during disciplinary proceedings must be carefully justified and proportionate to avoid liability under s.12 ERA 1999.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 2205131/2023
- Decision date
- 1 June 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 9
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- education
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- Chair Professor of Optogenetics and Circuit Neuroscience
- Service
- 10 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No