Claimant v Arrivia Europe Ltd
Outcome
Individual claims
This is a preliminary hearing on a deposit order application only. The substantive claim for ordinary unfair dismissal has not yet been determined and will proceed to full hearing.
The tribunal found the claimant's case had more than little reasonable prospect of success. The respondent's deposit order application was dismissed. Causation and whether the protected disclosure was the principal reason for dismissal remain to be determined at full hearing.
The detriment alleged is the disciplinary process initiated on 1 March 2024. The tribunal found the claim had realistic prospects given the chronology (disclosure on 27 February, investigation commenced 1 March). The deposit order application was dismissed and causation will be determined at full hearing.
Facts
The claimant, a 7-year employee, was dismissed on 9 April 2024 following a disciplinary process begun on 1 March 2024. On 27 February 2024, in a 58-minute phone call, he disclosed to the Chief Experience Officer that his manager had made 'spiff payments' to agents (overpaying expenses and receiving kickbacks) when she was a sales supervisor. The respondent knew before this disclosure about the claimant's contact with a former competitor and conduct issues from November 2023, but commenced disciplinary investigation shortly after the 27 February disclosure.
Decision
The tribunal dismissed the respondent's application for deposit orders against the whistleblowing claims. The judge found the claims had realistic prospects of success and could not be said to have little reasonable prospect. Whether the communication constituted a disclosure of 'information', whether it was in the public interest, and causation all required determination at full hearing after hearing evidence.
Practical note
Deposit order applications in whistleblowing cases face a high bar where there is a prima facie chronology linking disclosure to detriment/dismissal, even where the respondent has alternative explanations for dismissal.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 3307778/2024
- Decision date
- 24 April 2025
- Hearing type
- preliminary
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- technology
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Service
- 7 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister