Claimant v University of Brighton

The tribunal found the claimant did not make a qualifying disclosure. He acknowledged in oral evidence that he did not have in mind any belief of a breach of legal obligation when he sent the email on 20 January 2022. Legal obligations were only identified retrospectively after particulars were requested. His primary concern was that the audit report assigned blame to him personally, which was a personal rather than public interest matter.

The tribunal concluded the claimant did not make a protected disclosure, so he could not have suffered any detriment on grounds of making such a disclosure. The refusal to allow a stage 3 grievance appeal was found to be unrelated to any protected disclosure and based on proper application of the grievance procedure, not any whistleblowing.

The tribunal found no protected disclosure was made and the claimant resigned voluntarily on 28 April 2022. The respondent did not actively dismiss the claimant or take steps to terminate his contract. The reason for termination was the claimant's voluntary choice to resign, categorically not making a protected disclosure.

The tribunal carefully considered each allegation individually and cumulatively and concluded the respondent did not act in a way calculated or likely to destroy or seriously damage trust and confidence. Matters complained of largely appeared to be reasonable managerial decisions. There was no fundamental breach of the implied term of trust and confidence entitling the claimant to resign.

The claimant resigned voluntarily by letter dated 28 April 2022 stating immediate termination. There was no repudiatory breach of contract by the respondent. The claimant's unilateral notice of immediate termination was effective regardless of the respondent's acceptance. As the claimant resigned voluntarily without working his full notice period (3 months), there was no wrongful dismissal and no outstanding notice pay was owed.