Claimant v Serious Fraud Office
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal unanimously dismissed the claim of unfair constructive dismissal, finding that the claimant had not established that there was a fundamental breach of contract by the respondent that entitled him to resign and treat himself as constructively dismissed.
The tribunal unanimously dismissed the claim that the claimant suffered detriments on the ground of making protected disclosures, finding that either the disclosures were not protected or that any detriments were not on the ground of making such disclosures.
The tribunal unanimously dismissed the claim of unlawful deduction from wages, finding that there was no unauthorized deduction from the claimant's wages or that any deduction was properly authorized.
Facts
Mr Simpson brought claims against the Serious Fraud Office for unfair constructive dismissal, whistleblowing detriment, and unlawful deduction from wages. The case was heard over eight days at London Central Employment Tribunal. Mr Simpson represented himself while the SFO was represented by counsel.
Decision
The tribunal unanimously dismissed all of Mr Simpson's claims. The tribunal found he had not established a fundamental breach of contract justifying constructive dismissal, that his alleged protected disclosures either did not qualify or any detriments were not on the ground of making such disclosures, and that there was no unlawful deduction from his wages.
Practical note
A self-represented claimant bringing whistleblowing and constructive dismissal claims against a public body with legal representation faced significant challenges and was unsuccessful on all grounds after an eight-day hearing.
Case details
- Case number
- 2216928/2023
- Decision date
- 27 January 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 8
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- public sector
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No