Claimant v Advice Direct Scotland Ltd
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found that the claimant did not make any protected disclosures. His emails and messages on 14-15 January 2025 did not disclose information tending to show a section 43B circumstance, were not made with a reasonable belief in such circumstances, and did not convey a belief that any legal obligation had been breached. The claimant appeared to be asking questions and seeking clarification rather than making disclosures of wrongdoing.
The claim under section 47B of the Act (detriment for making protected disclosures) failed because the tribunal determined as a preliminary issue that no protected disclosures had been made. Without protected disclosures, the detriment claim cannot succeed.
The claim under section 103A of the Act (automatically unfair dismissal for making protected disclosures) failed because the tribunal determined as a preliminary issue that no protected disclosures had been made. The claimant did not have two years' service for an ordinary unfair dismissal claim and relied entirely on the whistleblowing route.
Facts
The claimant was Head of Technical Innovation at a Scottish charity providing free advice services, employed from May 2023 to January 2025. He alleged he made protected disclosures on 14-15 January 2025 via emails and Teams messages regarding discrepancies in reporting figures to the Scottish Government and Citizens Advice. He believed the respondent was over-reporting service volumes by including abandoned calls and out-of-scope contacts, potentially in breach of legal obligations. The respondent's deputy CEO had asked him to clarify reporting procedures after a query from the Scottish Government about quarter 3 statistics.
Decision
The tribunal found that none of the claimant's communications constituted protected disclosures. His emails did not disclose information tending to show a breach of legal obligation; he was asking questions and seeking clarification rather than making assertions. The claimant held incorrect assumptions about the funding arrangements and reporting requirements, and any belief in wrongdoing could not have been reasonably held. The claim was therefore dismissed entirely.
Practical note
Asking questions or expressing concerns about internal processes, without specific factual allegations of wrongdoing made with a reasonable belief, will not constitute a protected disclosure even if the employee subjectively believes something is wrong.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 4100709/2025
- Decision date
- 9 January 2026
- Hearing type
- preliminary
- Hearing days
- 5
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- charity
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- Head of Technical Innovation
- Service
- 2 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No