Claimant v Bristol Street Fourth Investments Limited

The tribunal found the disclosure was not a qualifying protected disclosure under s.43B and s.43C ERA 1996. The disclosure was made to a third party (Mr Gideon of Nissan UK) who was not responsible for the alleged failure. The disclosure was not made in the public interest but was self-serving, relating to a private commercial matter. The claim had no reasonable prospect of success and was struck out.

The alleged detriments could not be causally linked to the protected disclosure. The first alleged detriment (refusal of solution on 6 March 2024) pre-dated the disclosure made on 7 March 2024. The respondent's witnesses denied the confrontation took place. Mr Yeomans had no knowledge of any protected disclosure.

No causal link established between dismissal and any protected disclosure. The decision-maker Mr Green had already initiated probationary review proceedings on 5 March 2024, before the alleged disclosure. Mr Green had no knowledge of any protected disclosure. The dismissal letter dated 14 March 2024 set out reasons unrelated to any disclosure. The claimant had less than two years' service and failed to establish the necessary causal link.