Accountant dismissed after revealing colleague was a disqualified director: whistleblowing claim fails
An accountant who told her employer that a subcontractor was a disqualified director was dismissed for poor performance. The tribunal ruled the disclosure was not in the public interest and dismissed her whistleblowing claim.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #disqualified-director
- #personal-conflict
- #performance-dismissal
- #public-interest
- #workplace-dispute
Key facts
- The claimant started work as an accountant on 21 November 2018.
- Richard Grimes began working as a subcontractor in April 2019.
- The claimant's work performance declined from October 2019, with numerous errors documented.
- On 8 June 2020, the claimant disclosed that Mr Grimes was a disqualified director and not an ACCA member.
- The claimant was dismissed on 11 June 2020 due to poor performance and inability to work with Mr Grimes.
- The tribunal found the disclosure was not made in the public interest but to further a personal dispute.
Timeline
-
Employment start
Claimant started work as an accountant at Clare Jenner Limited.
-
Mr Grimes starts as subcontractor
Richard Grimes began working for the respondent as a subcontractor.
-
Missing accounts incident
A set of accounts was reported missing; later found after the claimant's dismissal.
-
Furlough period begins
Claimant placed on furlough until 25 May 2020.
-
Verbal warning
Claimant received a verbal warning from Ms Silcox about work performance.
-
Phone call to Ms Silcox
Claimant called Ms Silcox to request a meeting about being treated unfairly.
-
Meeting and disclosure
Claimant disclosed that Mr Grimes was a disqualified director and not an ACCA member.
-
Dismissal
Claimant dismissed by letter due to poor performance and inability to work with Mr Grimes.
-
Appeal letter
Claimant appealed, raising whistleblowing and protected disclosures for the first time.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant's disclosure that a subcontractor was a disqualified director was a protected disclosure under whistleblowing law, and if so, whether she was dismissed because of it.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed the claimant's claims of automatic unfair dismissal for whistleblowing and detriment.
The key reason was that the disclosure was not made in the public interest. The tribunal found the claimant's motivation was to advance her personal conflict with the subcontractor, not to expose wrongdoing for the wider public benefit.
No compensation was awarded as all claims failed.
Lessons & takeaways
- A disclosure must be made in the public interest to qualify for whistleblower protection – personal grievances do not count.
- Length of service (under 2 years) means you cannot claim ordinary unfair dismissal, only automatic unfair dismissal for specific reasons like whistleblowing.
- Documenting performance issues and giving warnings can help employers defend against whistleblowing claims if the dismissal is genuinely for capability.
- Raising a protected disclosure for the first time in an appeal letter may be seen as an afterthought if the original dismissal reason was unrelated.
When a disclosure is personal, not public
This case shows the importance of the 'public interest' test in whistleblowing claims. The accountant had been employed for less than two years when she was dismissed, so she could only claim automatic unfair dismissal if she could prove she was sacked for making a protected disclosure. The tribunal found that her disclosure about the subcontractor's disqualification was not made in the public interest – it was a weapon in a personal dispute.
What the employer did right
Clare Jenner Limited had documented a clear decline in the claimant's work performance from October 2019, with numerous errors. They gave her a verbal warning after furlough and had evidence of a strained working relationship with the subcontractor. The dismissal letter cited poor performance and inability to work with him, not the disclosure. The tribunal accepted this was the real reason.
Why the result matters
For employees, this is a reminder that not every report of wrongdoing is a protected disclosure. The motive matters. For employers, it shows that proper performance management and clear records can defeat a whistleblowing claim even when the employee has raised a genuine issue. The case also highlights that employees with under two years' service have limited unfair dismissal rights unless they can prove the dismissal was for an automatically unfair reason.
Similar cases
Managing director dismissed by email: £25,000 for wrongful dismissal but protected disclosure claim fails
A managing director with a six-month notice period was dismissed by email after raising concerns about unpaid expenses and pension contributions. The tribunal awarded £25,000 for wrongful dismissal but rejected his protected disclosure claim.
Trainee car salesman loses whistleblowing claim over father's email to CEO
A trainee car sales executive with 2.5 months' service failed to prove he made a protected disclosure when his father sent an email to the CEO alleging fraud. The tribunal found the email was not a disclosure by the claimant and was not in the public interest.
Whistleblowing claim fails: dismissal for missed shift upheld
A community development worker with four months' service was dismissed for missing a shift. The tribunal found the reason was absence, not her protected disclosures.
Apprentice dismissed after complaining about rest breaks: tribunal upholds dismissal
A 17-year-old apprentice beauty therapist who complained about not receiving rest breaks was dismissed during her trial period. The tribunal found the real reason was a stock incident, not her complaints, so the dismissal was fair.