Claimant v London Metropolitan University
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal dismissed the application for interim relief on the basis that the claimant did not have a 'pretty good chance' of establishing that he made protected disclosures or that any such disclosures were the principal reason for his dismissal. The substantive claim of automatic unfair dismissal under s.103A ERA 1996 remains to be determined at a full hearing.
The claimant alleged four protected disclosures, but abandoned two and the tribunal found the remaining two were unlikely to be found as protected disclosures at a full hearing. The first alleged disclosure (oral conversation on 9 April 2024) was disputed by the respondent and the tribunal found the claimant lacked corroborative evidence. The second alleged disclosure (8 May 2024 email about data breach) was found to be criticism of systems and ethical failures rather than a reasonable belief in a breach of legal obligation or criminal offence. The substantive whistleblowing claim remains to be determined.
Facts
Dr Ryan, an academic at London Metropolitan University, was dismissed on 18 October 2024 following a disciplinary process. He alleged he had made protected disclosures about GDPR breaches and ethical misconduct relating to student dissertation supervision. The first alleged disclosure was an oral conversation on 9 April 2024 about a colleague allowing reuse of participant data without consent. The second was an 8 May 2024 email raising concerns about a student dissertation that inadvertently identified participants discussing sensitive medical information. He applied for interim relief within seven days of dismissal, claiming whistleblowing was the principal reason for his dismissal.
Decision
The tribunal dismissed the interim relief application, finding the claimant did not have a 'pretty good chance' of establishing he made protected disclosures. The first alleged disclosure lacked corroborative evidence and was disputed. The second was found to be criticism of ethical failings rather than reasonable belief in legal breach. The tribunal also found it unlikely the claimant could establish protected disclosure was the principal reason for dismissal, as multiple colleagues who made allegations against him were unaware of any disclosures, and the dismissal letter showed broader conduct concerns.
Practical note
Interim relief applications in whistleblowing cases require strong contemporaneous evidence of both the disclosure content and the causal link to dismissal; vague criticisms of ethical standards will not meet the threshold for reasonable belief in legal breach.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 6016170/2024
- Decision date
- 11 December 2024
- Hearing type
- interim relief
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- procedural
Respondent
- Sector
- education
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- Academic staff member (lecturer/senior lecturer implied)
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No