Finance director awarded £754,000 after employer provided false evidence in whistleblowing case
A finance director who made protected disclosures about his employer's finances was automatically unfairly dismissed. The tribunal awarded £754,380.97 after the employer provided false evidence and failed to attend the final hearing.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #whistleblowing
- #interim-relief
- #reconsideration
- #false-evidence
- #costs-indemnity-basis
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as Finance Director and made protected disclosures about the respondent's financial position.
- The respondent dismissed the claimant on 28 February 2020, claiming performance issues.
- The respondent provided false evidence in support of an application to reconsider an interim relief order.
- The respondent failed to comply with disclosure orders and did not attend the final hearing.
- The tribunal found the claimant was automatically unfairly dismissed and subjected to detriment for making protected disclosures.
- The claimant was awarded £754,380.97 for detriment and £3,728 for unfair dismissal.
Timeline
-
Dismissal meeting
The third respondent communicated the decision to dismiss the claimant, effective end of March 2020. The claimant was told he was dismissed and given six months' notice.
-
Claimant's without prejudice offer
The claimant's solicitors sent a without prejudice offer to settle potential claims for breach of contract, unfair dismissal, and discrimination.
-
Respondent's response to offer
The respondent's solicitor replied, denying dismissal and stating the claimant continued in employment, with discussions about restructuring.
-
Interim relief hearing
Employment Judge McLaren granted interim relief, ordering the respondent to pay £13,750 per month and continue pension and health insurance.
-
Interim relief judgment date
The interim relief judgment was issued.
-
Respondent's reconsideration application
The respondent applied to reconsider the interim relief judgment, citing new evidence and a change of circumstances.
-
Reconsideration hearing
Employment Judge McLaren revoked the interim relief order, finding the claimant did not have a pretty good chance of success.
-
Reconsideration judgment date
The reconsideration judgment was issued.
-
Final hearing
Employment Judge Porter found the claimant was automatically unfairly dismissed and subjected to detriment, awarding compensation.
-
Final judgment date
The final judgment was issued, including a costs order on an indemnity basis.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant was automatically unfairly dismissed and subjected to detriment for making protected disclosures, and whether the respondent's conduct in the proceedings warranted a costs order on an indemnity basis.
The outcome
The tribunal found that the claimant was automatically unfairly dismissed and subjected to detriment for making protected disclosures. The respondent provided false evidence in support of an application to reconsider an interim relief order, failed to comply with disclosure orders, and did not attend the final hearing.
Compensation:
- Total award: £754,380.97
- Basic award: £3,228
- Compensatory award: £500
- The remainder (£750,652.97) was awarded for detriment (not further broken down in the facts)
Lessons & takeaways
- If you make protected disclosures about your employer's finances, you may be protected from dismissal or detriment under whistleblowing law.
- Employers who provide false evidence or fail to comply with tribunal orders risk significant costs orders on an indemnity basis.
- Interim relief can provide ongoing pay and benefits while a whistleblowing claim is pending, but it can be revoked if circumstances change.
- A tribunal can award substantial compensation for detriment caused by whistleblowing, separate from the unfair dismissal award.
A whistleblowing case that went wrong for the employer
This case shows what can happen when an employer tries to fight a whistleblowing claim with false evidence and non-compliance. The claimant, a finance director, made protected disclosures about the respondent's financial position. He was dismissed in February 2020, ostensibly for performance issues, but the tribunal found the real reason was the disclosures.
The respondent's conduct during proceedings was particularly damaging. It provided false evidence in support of an application to reconsider an interim relief order, failed to comply with disclosure orders, and did not attend the final hearing. The tribunal was unimpressed, awarding costs on an indemnity basis.
What the employer could have done differently
The respondent could have avoided this outcome by engaging properly with the process. Instead of providing false evidence and ignoring orders, it could have sought to settle the claim or defended it on its merits. The interim relief order, which required monthly payments of £13,750 plus pension and health insurance, was initially granted but later revoked after the employer provided new evidence. However, the final hearing still resulted in a substantial award.
Why this matters for similar claims
This case highlights the importance of proper conduct in tribunal proceedings. Employers who act in bad faith risk not only losing the case but also facing significant costs. For employees, it shows that whistleblowing claims can lead to substantial compensation, especially where the employer's behaviour is egregious. The award of over £754,000 reflects the seriousness of the detriment suffered by the claimant.
Similar cases
Whistleblowing claim: repeated amendment applications not unreasonable enough for costs
A former chartered accountant who made multiple applications to amend her whistleblowing and sex discrimination claims avoided a costs order, even though most amendments were refused. The tribunal said her conduct was not unreasonable or vexatious.
Whistleblowing unfair dismissal claim struck out after interim relief refused
A Data Protection Officer who alleged he was dismissed for making protected disclosures saw his claim struck out after failing to comply with tribunal orders. His interim relief application was dismissed for not meeting the high threshold of a 'pretty good chance' of success.
Whistleblowing dismissal: interim relief refused for former employee
A former employee who claimed she was automatically unfairly dismissed for making 11 protected disclosures has been refused interim relief by the tribunal, which found it unlikely she would succeed at the final hearing.
Bid Architect fails to win interim relief over whistleblowing claim
A bid architect with nine months' service claimed his redundancy was a sham to cover up a protected disclosure. The tribunal refused interim relief, finding it unlikely that the principal reason for dismissal was whistleblowing.