Cases6004446/2024

Claimant v Arcus FM Limited

9 May 2025Before Employment Judge ByrneEast Londonin person

Outcome

Claimant fails

Individual claims

Whistleblowingfailed

The tribunal did not uphold the claim for protected disclosure detriment under Section 47B Employment Rights Act 1996. Reasons were given orally at the hearing but not set out in written form in this judgment.

Automatic Unfair Dismissalfailed

The tribunal did not uphold the claim for automatic unfair dismissal for whistleblowing under Section 103A Employment Rights Act 1996. Reasons were given orally at the hearing but not set out in written form in this judgment.

Unfair Dismissalfailed

The tribunal did not uphold the claim for ordinary unfair dismissal under Section 94 Employment Rights Act 1996. Reasons were given orally at the hearing but not set out in written form in this judgment.

Facts

Mr Tebani brought claims against his former employer Arcus FM Limited alleging that he had been subjected to detriment and ultimately dismissed for making protected disclosures (whistleblowing). The case was heard over four days in May 2025 before a full tribunal panel. The claimant represented himself while the respondent was represented by a consultant. Reasons for the tribunal's decision were given orally at the hearing.

Decision

The tribunal dismissed all three claims brought by the claimant. It found that there was no protected disclosure detriment under s.47B ERA 1996, no automatic unfair dismissal for whistleblowing under s.103A ERA 1996, and no ordinary unfair dismissal under s.94 ERA 1996. The tribunal provided oral reasons at the hearing but did not issue written reasons with this judgment.

Practical note

This case demonstrates that whistleblowing claims require strong evidence that qualifying disclosures were made and that any detriment or dismissal was causally linked to those disclosures, which the claimant failed to establish here.

Legal authorities cited

Statutes

ERA 1996 s.47BERA 1996 s.103AERA 1996 s.94

Case details

Case number
6004446/2024
Decision date
9 May 2025
Hearing type
full merits
Hearing days
4
Classification
contested

Respondent

Sector
professional services
Represented
Yes
Rep type
lay rep

Claimant representation

Represented
No