Group Finance Director dismissed for insubordination: whistleblowing claims fail
The tribunal dismissed claims of automatic unfair dismissal and detriment from a Group Finance Director who alleged he was sacked for whistleblowing. The disclosures were not in the public interest, and the dismissal was fair.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #protected-disclosure
- #public-interest
- #section-228-companies-act
- #credibility
- #costs-order
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as Group Finance Director and Company Secretary from February 2016.
- The claimant made disclosures about a breach of section 228 of the Companies Act 2006 in June and July 2017.
- The tribunal found the claimant did not believe the disclosures were in the public interest.
- The claimant was dismissed following a disciplinary process for insubordination and loss of trust and confidence.
- The tribunal dismissed all claims of unfair dismissal and detriment.
Timeline
-
Employment commenced
Claimant employed as Chief Financial Controller on £100,000 salary with 50% bonus.
-
Promotion to Group Finance Director
Claimant appointed as Group Finance Director and Company Secretary; salary increased to £110,000.
-
Oral disclosure to Mr Shah
Claimant orally informed Mr Shah that the respondent was in breach of section 228 Companies Act 2006.
-
Written disclosure to Mr Shah
Claimant emailed Mr Shah reiterating the breach of section 228.
-
Email to all directors
Claimant emailed the board about the section 228 breach and proposed a strategy to fix it.
-
Altercation with Mr Shah
Heated meeting where claimant raised his voice and allegedly pointed a pen at Mr Shah.
-
Disciplinary hearing invitation
Claimant invited to disciplinary hearing for conduct issues including refusal to provide documents and the August incident.
-
Dismissal decision
Mr Kissane recommended dismissal; claimant dismissed for loss of trust and confidence.
-
Appeal rejected
Appeal heard by Mr King; dismissal upheld.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant's disclosures about a breach of section 228 of the Companies Act 2006 were protected disclosures, and if so, whether they caused detriment or dismissal. It also had to determine whether the dismissal was fair under section 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed all claims. The claimant's disclosures were not protected because he did not reasonably believe they were in the public interest. The dismissal for conduct (insubordination and loss of trust) was fair.
No compensation was awarded as the respondent won.
Lessons & takeaways
- For a disclosure to be protected, you must reasonably believe it is in the public interest – not just your own or your employer's interest.
- Even if you raise a genuine legal issue, your conduct during the process (e.g., insubordination) can justify dismissal.
- Tribunals will scrutinise whether a whistleblower genuinely believed the disclosure served the public, especially if the issue was internal and not widely relevant.
When whistleblowing claims fail: the public interest test
This case shows that not every disclosure of a legal breach qualifies as whistleblowing. The claimant, a Group Finance Director and Company Secretary, told his employer that the company was breaching section 228 of the Companies Act 2006. He argued this was a protected disclosure and that his subsequent dismissal for insubordination was automatically unfair.
However, the tribunal found that the claimant did not reasonably believe the disclosure was in the public interest. The breach was an internal technical matter, and the claimant's motivation appeared to be personal grievance rather than public concern. Without that belief, the disclosure was not protected, and the dismissal could be judged on ordinary fairness grounds.
What the employer did right
The employer, The Character Group plc, followed a proper disciplinary process. The claimant had a heated altercation with a director, refused to provide documents, and lost the trust of the board. The tribunal accepted that the dismissal was for conduct and that the employer acted reasonably in treating the breakdown in trust as a fair reason to dismiss.
Key takeaway for employees
If you are considering raising a concern at work, think carefully about whether it genuinely serves the public interest. Disclosures that are purely internal or about private contractual matters may not qualify for whistleblower protection. And even if they do, your own behaviour – such as insubordination – can still lead to a fair dismissal.
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.
Whistleblowing project manager dismissed after raising concerns about charity finances
A project manager who made six protected disclosures about financial irregularities and safety failings at a homeless charity was automatically unfairly dismissed. The tribunal awarded £5,000 compensation.