Covert recordings and protected disclosures: tribunal dismisses civil servant's claims
A long-serving HMRC civil servant who covertly recorded meetings with his manager had his unfair dismissal and whistleblowing claims dismissed after the tribunal found a fair trial was impossible.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #protected-disclosure
- #covert-recording
- #gross-misconduct
- #civil-service
- #pension-scheme
- #agency
Key facts
- The claimant was employed by HMRC as a Higher Officer in its Commercial Directorate from 1984 until dismissal on 11 June 2015.
- The claimant covertly recorded meetings with his manager in August and September 2014 and provided the recordings to HMRC during tribunal proceedings.
- HMRC dismissed the claimant for gross misconduct, citing a breakdown of trust due to the covert recordings.
- The claimant alleged he was dismissed because he made protected disclosures about illegal procurement practices.
- The tribunal struck out the claimant's detriment claims for lack of reasonable prospect of success and later dismissed all claims due to the impossibility of a fair trial.
- The claimant's claims against non-employer respondents (Cabinet Office, MyCSP, Health Management Ltd, Health Assured Ltd) were dismissed as they were not agents of HMRC.
Timeline
-
Claimant raises concerns about MOIS deal
The claimant, a civil servant in HMRC's Commercial Directorate, raised concerns that the MOIS deal was illegal and not compliant with public procurement law.
-
First tribunal claim presented
The claimant presented claim 2409957/2013 against HMRC for detriment due to protected disclosures.
-
Covert recording of manager
The claimant covertly recorded a meeting with his manager in August 2014, and further recordings in September 2014.
-
Dismissal by HMRC
HMRC dismissed the claimant for gross misconduct, citing the covert recordings as a breach of trust.
-
2015 claim presented
The claimant presented claim 2408488/2015 for unfair dismissal and protected disclosure detriment.
-
2015 claim reinstated
Following the UNISON judgment on tribunal fees, the 2015 claim was reinstated by Regional Employment Judge Parkin.
-
2019 claim presented
The claimant presented claim 2400171/2019 against HMRC, Cabinet Office, MyCSP, Health Management Ltd, and Minister for Civil Service for detriment.
-
Preliminary hearing judgment
Regional Employment Judge Parkin struck out the detriment claims in the 2015 claim and struck out claims against MyCSP, Health Management Ltd, and the Minister, but allowed the unfair dismissal claim and claims against HMRC and Cabinet Office to proceed.
-
Agency issue decided
Employment Judge Slater ruled that the Cabinet Office and Health Assured Ltd were not agents of HMRC and dismissed them as respondents.
-
Final hearing: claims dismissed
Employment Judge Cookson dismissed all remaining claims, concluding that a fair trial was no longer possible due to the claimant's conduct and health.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant's claims for unfair dismissal and detriment due to protected disclosures could proceed, and whether non-employer respondents could be liable as agents of HMRC.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed all remaining claims against HM Revenue and Customs and other respondents.
- The key reason was that a fair trial was no longer possible due to the claimant's covert recordings and his health.
- The claimant's detriment claims were struck out earlier for lack of reasonable prospect of success.
- Claims against non-employer respondents (Cabinet Office, MyCSP, Health Management Ltd, Health Assured Ltd) were dismissed as they were not agents of HMRC.
- No compensation was awarded as the claims were dismissed.
Lessons & takeaways
- Covertly recording meetings with managers can undermine trust and lead to dismissal for gross misconduct.
- Making protected disclosures does not give employees carte blanche to breach workplace confidentiality or trust.
- Tribunals can strike out claims if the claimant's conduct makes a fair trial impossible.
- Claims against third parties like pension administrators or health providers are unlikely to succeed unless they are acting as agents of the employer.
What this case shows in practice
This case illustrates the risks employees take when they secretly record workplace conversations. The civil servant, who had worked for HMRC since 1984, covertly recorded meetings with his manager in August and September 2014. When those recordings emerged during tribunal proceedings, HMRC dismissed him for gross misconduct, citing a breakdown of trust. The tribunal ultimately concluded that the recordings, combined with the claimant's health issues, made a fair trial impossible.
What the losing side could have done differently
The claimant could have avoided dismissal by raising his concerns through official channels rather than covert recordings. While he believed he was making protected disclosures about illegal procurement practices, the method he chose backfired. HMRC, for its part, could have handled the whistleblowing allegations more thoroughly at an earlier stage, but the tribunal focused on the procedural impossibility caused by the claimant's actions.
Why the result matters for similar claims
This decision reinforces that even long-serving employees with genuine concerns about wrongdoing must follow proper procedures. Covert recordings are rarely justified in the workplace and can destroy the trust needed for a fair hearing. It also shows that tribunals will not hesitate to strike out claims when a claimant's conduct prevents a fair trial, regardless of the underlying merits.
Similar cases
Care home manager's whistleblowing claim fails as decision-maker unaware of disclosures
A care home manager who claimed he was automatically unfairly dismissed for raising concerns about resident safety lost his case. The tribunal found the decision-maker did not know about the disclosures and dismissed him for genuine belief in gross misconduct.
Area manager dismissed for editing timesheet: procedural failures led to unfair dismissal finding
An area manager was unfairly dismissed after editing a timesheet, but the tribunal found the investigation was flawed and the disciplinary process lacked proper notice. He was awarded £8,026 after reductions for contributory conduct and a Polkey finding.
Dismissed for using visitor parking permits: a flawed process that cost the council £35,000
A deputy manager with 16 years' service was dismissed for gross misconduct over visitor parking permits. The tribunal found the process unfair and awarded £35,318.56, but rejected her whistleblowing claim.
Electrician dismissed after raising asbestos concerns: whistleblowing and wrongful dismissal claim succeeds
An electrician who raised asbestos safety concerns was dismissed for alleged expense fraud. The tribunal found the dismissal was tainted by whistleblowing and awarded nearly £20,000.