Claimant v Network Plus Services Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found the claimant made three protected disclosures (24 March 2023 at SLT meeting, 24 March 2023 Teams messages to Mr Sutch, and 5 April 2023 at SLT meeting and Teams to Mr Woods) disclosing information that the Respondent was breaching legal obligations by failing to obtain wayleaves before installing apparatus on private land, creating health and safety risks. The tribunal found that the sole or principal reason for dismissal was these protected disclosures, rejecting the Respondent's explanations of redundancy and poor performance as inconsistent and lacking credibility.
The tribunal found that the claimant made qualifying disclosures on three occasions (24 March 2023 SLT meeting, 24 March 2023 private Teams exchange with Mr Sutch, and 5 April 2023 SLT meeting and Teams to Mr Woods). These disclosures conveyed facts about legal consequences of failing to obtain wayleaves (nuisance, loss of amenity, damage to property, economic loss, trespass), referenced the Code, and the Mayfair example where his previous employer was sued. The tribunal found the claimant had reasonable belief the information was substantially true, was made in the public interest affecting large numbers of customers and involved breaches of legal obligations under the Electronic Communications Code and health and safety risks.
Claimant did not pursue this aspect of the claim in cross examination and confirmed in closing submissions he was not pursuing detriment contrary to section 47B ERA 1996.
Facts
Claimant was Chief Technology Officer for a telecommunications company from September 2022 until dismissed in May 2023, less than 8 months into role. He raised concerns on multiple occasions that the Respondent was breaching legal obligations by failing to obtain wayleaves (access agreements) before installing telecommunications apparatus on private land, in breach of the Electronic Communications Code. The Respondent was under pressure from private equity investors to increase customer connections, particularly in the business-to-business market, but wayleaves were delaying connections. Senior management proposed proceeding without wayleaves to maximise revenue, accepting the legal risk. The Claimant, drawing on experience from his previous employer who had been sued for £200k+ for similar breaches, raised concerns with increasing specificity about legal consequences including trespass, nuisance, economic loss and health and safety risks. He was told by the CEO 'it's sometimes easier to ask for forgiveness than to get permission' and was dismissed allegedly for redundancy shortly after his final disclosure in April 2023.
Decision
The tribunal found the claimant made three protected disclosures in March and April 2023 disclosing information that the Respondent was breaching the Electronic Communications Code by failing to obtain wayleaves, creating legal liability and health and safety risks. The tribunal rejected the Respondent's explanations for dismissal (redundancy and poor performance) as inconsistent, lacking credibility and unsupported by documentation. The tribunal found the sole or principal reason for dismissal was the protected disclosures, as the claimant's ethical stance and increasingly vocal protests were at odds with senior management's willingness to break the law if the financial risk was acceptable.
Practical note
Senior executives who make detailed, specific whistleblowing disclosures about breaches of statutory obligations are protected even if they do not escalate concerns beyond their direct line management, and employers who give inconsistent explanations for dismissal lacking proper documentation will struggle to rebut a whistleblowing claim.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 2409585/2023
- Decision date
- 8 April 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 5
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- telecoms
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- Chief Technology Officer
- Service
- 7 months
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No