Claimant v Vision Teaching Limited

The tribunal found the claimant had no reasonable prospect of establishing that she made protected disclosures. The claimant's allegations of sexual abuse were incoherent and factually intertwined with outlandish beliefs about public figures conspiring against her. The tribunal concluded she had no reasonable prospect of satisfying it that her belief that the information disclosed tended to show wrongdoing was reasonable, an essential element of a protected disclosure.

The claimant alleged five detriments flowing from the alleged protected disclosure. The tribunal struck out all claims: (1) the first (comment by safeguarding officer) failed because the claimant could not establish a protected disclosure; (2) the second (reduction in work) had no prospect on causation as documents showed regular work was offered after the disclosure; (3) the third (removal from books) failed on causation due to the claimant's own email of 8 December 2023 stating she was taking a break; (4) the fourth and fifth (refusal of work and negative references) failed because the claimant could not establish protected disclosures.

The claimant alleged automatic unfair dismissal for whistleblowing (the refusal to offer work on 20 February 2024 being treated as dismissal). Struck out because the claimant had no reasonable prospect of establishing she made protected disclosures and also because contemporaneous documents showed she was offered work for a significant period after the alleged disclosures, undermining causation.