Whistleblowing claim fails: sales specialist's bribery allegation rejected by tribunal
A Territory Sales Specialist who claimed he was dismissed for reporting an alleged bribe saw his whistleblowing and unfair dismissal claims rejected after the tribunal found he had not made a protected disclosure.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #public-interest-disclosure
- #unfair-dismissal
- #bribery-allegation
- #covert-recording
- #credibility-finding
- #costs-order
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as a Territory Sales Specialist from 10 April 2017 until his dismissal on 3 December 2019.
- The claimant alleged that Mr Lennox attempted to bribe a representative of Barnet NHS Trust CCG on 12 January 2018.
- The tribunal found that the claimant did not make a protected disclosure on 12 January 2018.
- The tribunal found that the claimant did not have a genuine or reasonable belief that the £2,500 payment constituted a bribe.
- The tribunal accepted the evidence of the respondent's witnesses and rejected the claimant's account, including finding that the claimant had invented conversations with Dr Kaul.
- The claimant's dismissal was for misconduct (driving offences and insubordination) and was fair.
Timeline
-
Employment start
Claimant commenced employment with Trudell Medical UK Ltd as a Territory Sales Specialist.
-
Meeting with Mr Attar-Zadeh
Claimant met with Mr Darush Attar-Zadeh, respiratory lead pharmacist for Barnet CCG, to discuss upgrading to Aerochamber Plus Flow Vu.
-
Meeting with Mr Lennox and Mr Attar-Zadeh
Claimant and Mr Lennox met Mr Attar-Zadeh. Claimant alleges Mr Lennox offered a bribe; Mr Lennox denies this.
-
Invoice request
Mr Attar-Zadeh emailed claimant asking for details to send an invoice for £2,500 towards training.
-
Invoice forwarded
Claimant forwarded the £2,500 invoice to Mr Lennox for processing.
-
Disclosure to Ms Crockett
Claimant called Ms Crockett and mentioned 'attempt of bribery/coercion' by someone in the organisation.
-
Disciplinary invitation
Claimant invited to disciplinary hearing regarding driving offences and insubordination.
-
Police disclosure
Claimant reported bribery allegations to the police.
-
Grievance lodged
Claimant lodged a grievance alleging bribery by Mr Lennox, bullying, harassment, and unfavourable treatment.
-
Dismissal
Claimant dismissed with immediate effect for gross misconduct (driving offences and insubordination).
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant made protected disclosures about an alleged bribery attempt and whether he was subjected to detriments or automatically unfairly dismissed for making them, as well as whether his ordinary unfair dismissal claim succeeded.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed all of the claimant's claims. It found that the claimant did not make a protected disclosure on 12 January 2018, as he did not have a genuine or reasonable belief that the £2,500 payment constituted a bribe. The tribunal accepted the evidence of the respondent's witnesses and rejected the claimant's account, including finding that he had invented conversations with Dr Kaul. The claimant's dismissal for misconduct (driving offences and insubordination) was fair.
No compensation was awarded as the claims were dismissed.
Lessons & takeaways
- To qualify as a protected disclosure, you must have a genuine and reasonable belief that the information tends to show wrongdoing; a suspicion without reasonable grounds will not suffice.
- Tribunals will scrutinise the credibility of witnesses closely; inconsistencies in your account can undermine your entire case.
- If you are dismissed for separate misconduct, a whistleblowing claim will not succeed unless the disclosure was the real reason for dismissal.
- Covert recordings or witness evidence that is not supported by credible witnesses may harm rather than help your case.
A whistleblowing claim that unravelled
This case shows how difficult it can be to prove that a dismissal was linked to a protected disclosure. The claimant, a Territory Sales Specialist, alleged that his line manager attempted to bribe a pharmacist by offering a £2,500 payment. However, the tribunal found that the claimant did not have a genuine or reasonable belief that this was a bribe. Instead, it accepted the respondent's evidence that the payment was a legitimate contribution towards training.
The tribunal also rejected the claimant's account of key conversations, finding that he had invented discussions with a doctor. This credibility finding was fatal to his case. The tribunal concluded that the real reason for his dismissal was misconduct – specifically, driving offences and insubordination – not the alleged whistleblowing.
What the respondent did right
Trudell Medical UK Ltd was able to show that it had a clear disciplinary process and that the dismissal was based on evidence of misconduct unrelated to the disclosure. The respondent's witnesses were found to be credible, and the tribunal accepted their version of events. This highlights the importance of maintaining thorough records and ensuring that any disciplinary action is clearly documented and separate from any protected disclosure issues.
Key takeaway for employees
For employees considering a whistleblowing claim, this case is a reminder that the belief in wrongdoing must be both genuine and reasonable. A mere suspicion, especially if it is not supported by credible evidence, will not be enough. It also underscores the importance of consistency in your account – any inconsistencies can be used to undermine your credibility. If you are dismissed for separate misconduct, you will need to show that the disclosure was the real reason, which can be a high bar to meet.
Similar cases
Deposit order not paid: whistleblowing claim struck out, costs awarded
A former employee's claim for automatically unfair dismissal was struck out after she failed to pay a £500 deposit ordered by the tribunal. The GP surgery also won costs of £3,036.
Whistleblowing claim dismissed: tribunal orders £2,000 costs for pursuing case with no prospects
A former employee's claim for automatic unfair dismissal based on alleged protected disclosures was dismissed, and she was ordered to pay £2,000 in costs for pursuing a case with no reasonable prospects.
Redundancy claim struck out for non-disclosure: costs of £6,853 awarded
A senior manager's unfair dismissal claim was struck out after he failed to disclose documents about his new job. The tribunal ordered him to pay £6,853 in costs for unreasonable conduct.
Lead Software Consultant's whistleblowing claims dismissed as out of time
An employment tribunal struck out a Lead Software Consultant's whistleblowing detriment and automatically unfair dismissal claims, leaving only an ordinary unfair dismissal claim to proceed. The tribunal also refused the employer's bid to strike out the remaining claim due to the claimant's conduct.