Cases2202090/2024

Claimant v Santander UK PLC

8 May 2025Before Employment Judge L BrownLondon Centralremote video

Outcome

Partly successful

Individual claims

Whistleblowingstruck out

Detriment e (that respondent told FCA there were conduct issues which claimant accepted) was previously refused as an amendment by EJ Bunting who found it out of time. Under res judicata / cause of action estoppel, that finding cannot be re-litigated.

Whistleblowingstruck out

Detriment g (attempting to undermine and discredit claimant to the FCA, with six sub-allegations) was previously refused as an amendment by EJ Bunting who found it out of time. Under res judicata / cause of action estoppel, that finding cannot be re-litigated.

Whistleblowingnot determined

Detriments a-d and f (including allegations that respondent told FCA claimant was responsible for theft, misrepresented her disclosures to FCA, prevented her holding regulated positions, and failed to disclose supporting documents to FCA) were not struck out. These relate to matters the claimant says she discovered after October 2023, so could not have been raised in the 2018 proceedings. Not barred by res judicata or Henderson v Henderson. Time issues require evidence to determine.

Facts

The claimant brought whistleblowing detriment claims in 2024 and 2025 concerning alleged post-employment conduct by her former employer Santander. She had previously brought a claim in 2018 which was struck out in January 2021. At this preliminary hearing she refined her claims, withdrawing Equality Act claims and claims against the FCA. She alleged various detriments including that the respondent told the FCA she was responsible for document theft, misrepresented her protected disclosures to the FCA, and undermined her credibility to prevent her holding regulated positions. The respondent applied to strike out the claims on res judicata grounds.

Decision

The tribunal struck out two categories of whistleblowing detriment allegations (allegations e and g) on the basis of cause of action estoppel, because Employment Judge Bunting had previously refused to allow these same allegations to be added by amendment to the 2024 claim, finding them out of time. The tribunal allowed other detriment allegations (a-d and f) to proceed, finding they were not barred by res judicata or Henderson v Henderson because they related to matters the claimant only discovered after October 2023, so could not have been raised in the 2018 proceedings.

Practical note

Res judicata / cause of action estoppel prevents a claimant from relitigating matters that were previously refused as amendments on time grounds, but does not bar new detriment allegations based on information discovered after earlier proceedings concluded.

Legal authorities cited

Virgin Atlantic Airways Ltd v Zodiac Seats UK Ltd [2013] 4 All ER 715Henderson v Henderson (1843) 3 Hare 100Johnson v Gore Wood & Co [2002] 2 AC 1

Case details

Case number
2202090/2024
Decision date
8 May 2025
Hearing type
preliminary
Hearing days
1
Classification
contested

Respondent

Sector
financial services
Represented
Yes
Rep type
barrister

Employment details

Role
MLRO

Claimant representation

Represented
Yes
Rep type
barrister