Claimant v South Cambridgeshire District Council
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found that the claimant's witness statement to court did not amount to a protected disclosure under s.43B ERA 1996. The statement conveyed information about not smelling cannabis but did not disclose a breach of legal obligation, miscarriage of justice, or danger to health/safety. There was no reference to any failing by the Respondent. The claimant did not believe the disclosure was in the public interest; it was made for an individual resident. Even if believed in good faith, such belief was unreasonable.
The tribunal found that the suspension, investigation, and allegations were detriments, but failed for lack of a protected disclosure. In addition, causation failed: the detriments were due to the claimant accessing confidential data on Anite, disclosing it, and ignoring management instructions not to get involved in the eviction case — not because of any protected disclosure.
The tribunal found the claimant was not dismissed for making a protected disclosure because no protected disclosure was made. Even if there had been a disclosure, the tribunal found the reason for dismissal was the claimant's misconduct: unauthorised access and disclosure of Anite data, ignoring management instructions, and reputational risk to the council — not the contents of the witness statement. Causation failed under the Kong separability principle.
The tribunal found the reason for dismissal was conduct (a potentially fair reason). The Burchell test was satisfied: the respondent had a reasonable belief in misconduct following a reasonable investigation. The claimant accessed Anite without authorisation, released personal data, ignored management instructions, and caused reputational risk. The procedure was fair and the sanction of dismissal fell within the band of reasonable responses, taking into account the gravity of the misconduct, lack of reassurance it would not recur, and the claimant's shifting position. The unfair dismissal claim was dismissed.
Withdrawn by claimant.
Withdrawn by claimant.
Facts
The claimant was a surveyor employed by a local authority for nine years. In February 2023, she sent a witness statement to the County Court supporting a resident facing eviction proceedings. The statement said she had not smelled or seen cannabis at the property. The email was sent from her work account and included personal data from the council's database (Anite) about the resident's neighbour. The claimant had been warned by several managers not to get involved in the case. The council withdrew the eviction application and suspended the claimant. A disciplinary investigation found she had accessed and disclosed confidential data, ignored management instructions, and risked bringing the council into disrepute. She was dismissed for gross misconduct.
Decision
The tribunal dismissed all claims. The witness statement was not a protected disclosure because it did not tend to show a breach of legal obligation, miscarriage of justice, or danger to health/safety, nor was it made in the public interest. The claimant was not dismissed or subjected to detriment for whistleblowing. She was dismissed for misconduct: accessing and disclosing data without authority, ignoring management instructions, and causing reputational risk. The dismissal was fair: the investigation and procedure were reasonable, the employer had a genuine belief in misconduct, and dismissal fell within the band of reasonable responses.
Practical note
A witness statement to court supporting a tenant does not amount to a protected disclosure unless it conveys information tending to show a specific legal or safety failing by the employer; expressing factual observations without alleging wrongdoing or acting primarily to help an individual falls outside whistleblowing protection, and dismissal for accessing and releasing confidential data in breach of clear instructions may be fair even after long service if the employer reasonably lacks reassurance it will not recur.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 3311377/2023
- Decision date
- 3 April 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 7
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- public sector
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- Planned Maintenance Contract Surveyor
- Service
- 9 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- solicitor