Claimant v Barclays Execution Services Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal dismissed the claimant's application for interim relief, finding he was not likely to succeed in showing his dismissal was due to a protected disclosure. The judge found grave doubts as to whether a protected disclosure was made, noting the alleged disclosure did not identify a legal obligation or public interest. Furthermore, contemporaneous documents showed performance concerns raised from September 2023, before any alleged disclosure in November 2023, and the dismissing manager Ms Richards was unaware of any disclosure.
This claim was mentioned in the judgment but not determined at this preliminary hearing which dealt only with the interim relief application for whistleblowing dismissal.
This claim was mentioned in the judgment but not determined at this preliminary hearing which dealt only with the interim relief application for whistleblowing dismissal.
This claim was mentioned in the judgment but not determined at this preliminary hearing which dealt only with the interim relief application for whistleblowing dismissal.
This claim was mentioned in the judgment as a vehicle to claim monies allegedly owed, but was not determined at this preliminary hearing which dealt only with the interim relief application.
Facts
The claimant, a Data Analyst employed by Barclays from June 2023 to January 2025, was dismissed during his probationary period. He alleged he was dismissed for making a protected disclosure about senior managers delegating work to juniors in breach of financial regulations. The respondent maintained the dismissal was due to performance concerns including interpersonal skills, reliability, timekeeping, and rudeness, documented from September 2023 onwards. The decision to dismiss was taken by Ms Richards, a manager from another part of the business brought in to review his probation following grievances.
Decision
The tribunal dismissed the interim relief application, finding the claimant was unlikely to succeed at final hearing. The judge found grave doubts whether any protected disclosure was made, noting inconsistencies about when and what was disclosed, and finding no public interest element. More fundamentally, contemporaneous documents showed performance concerns raised from September 2023, two months before any alleged disclosure in November 2023, undermining the causation argument.
Practical note
Interim relief applications for whistleblowing dismissal require clear evidence of both a qualifying protected disclosure (including public interest) and a causative link to dismissal; contemporaneous performance management records predating any disclosure are highly probative against causation.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 6002047/2025
- Decision date
- 30 April 2025
- Hearing type
- preliminary
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- financial services
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- Data Analyst
- Service
- 2 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No