Claimant v Lancaster Gate Assistance Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found that the claimant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that he made protected disclosures as defined by the Employment Rights Act 1996. The evidence regarding alleged disclosures was too vague, lacked consistency, and was absent of important details such as dates, times, and locations. The tribunal concluded that any informal discussions were not sufficient to constitute disclosures of information conveying facts that would bring them within the statutory definition. The claimant constructed a version of facts post-termination that was not accurate or honest.
The tribunal found no detriment suffered by the claimant. The key decision-maker, Mr Price, was unaware of any alleged protected disclosures at the time of the alleged detriments on 30 October 2023. Therefore, the actions taken (garden leave, signing agreement) could not have been motivated by protected disclosures. Garden leave was found not to be a detriment as the claimant remained on full pay and avoided disciplinary action. The email to the FCA did not cause actual detriment as there was no evidence the FCA took action or that the claimant could be identified or that his employment prospects were damaged.
Facts
The claimant worked as a Recoveries Handler for a motor insurance claims management company from March to November 2023. He resigned to take up employment with a competitor, Hastings Direct. On 30 October 2023, the respondent discovered the claimant had sent confidential business information to his personal email address. He was placed on garden leave and required to delete the emails. After his departure, the claimant alleged he had made protected disclosures during his employment about fraudulent practices including forging signatures on credit hire agreements, misdating cheques, and sharing training materials. The respondent denied knowledge of any disclosures prior to receiving the claimant's letter in November 2023.
Decision
The tribunal dismissed all claims. It found the claimant failed to prove he made protected disclosures as his evidence was too vague, inconsistent, and lacked basic detail about when, where and to whom disclosures were made. The tribunal concluded any informal discussions did not amount to disclosures of information as required by statute. Further, the key decision-maker was unaware of any alleged disclosures at the time of the alleged detriments, breaking the causal link. The tribunal found no actual detriment suffered by the claimant in any event.
Practical note
Vague and unparticularised allegations of whistleblowing made post-termination, unsupported by contemporaneous evidence and contradicted by the claimant's conduct during employment, will fail where the claimant cannot establish that disclosures of information with sufficient factual content were actually made.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 3300327/2024
- Decision date
- 12 March 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 4
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- financial services
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- Recoveries Handler
- Service
- 8 months
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No