Fixed-term IT project manager loses all claims after tribunal finds he destroyed his own credibility
An IT project manager on a fixed-term contract brought multiple claims of race discrimination, victimisation and whistleblowing detriment against Warwickshire County Council. The tribunal dismissed every claim, finding he had invented allegations and created false documents.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as an IT Project Manager on a fixed-term contract from 24 June 2019 to 31 March 2020.
- The claimant was dismissed on 18 March 2020 due to a breakdown in the employment relationship caused by his unreasonable conduct.
- The claimant made numerous allegations of race discrimination, victimisation, and whistleblowing detriment, all of which were rejected by the tribunal.
- The tribunal found that the claimant had destroyed his own credibility by inventing allegations, creating false documents, and giving inconsistent evidence.
- The claimant's fixed-term contract was due to end on 31 March 2020, and he lacked two years' continuous service for an ordinary unfair dismissal claim.
- The respondent was awarded costs on an indemnity basis due to the claimant's unreasonable conduct, including manufacturing evidence and making false allegations.
Timeline
-
Employment commenced
The claimant started work as an IT Project Manager on a fixed-term contract ending 31 March 2020.
-
First consultation meeting
The claimant attended a meeting with Mr Hussain and Mr Jewkes regarding the ICT restructure.
-
Email requesting Equality Impact Assessment
The claimant emailed Miss De Kretser asking for an Equality Impact Assessment, which he later alleged was a protected act.
-
First formal grievance raised
The claimant raised a formal grievance about the restructure and alleged discrimination.
-
Grievance meeting cancelled
The claimant's grievance investigation meeting with Mr Savage was cancelled after the claimant made serious allegations against Mr Savage.
-
Claimant suspended
The claimant was told not to attend work pending a meeting to discuss early termination of his contract.
-
Dismissal letter sent
Mr Cusack sent a letter dismissing the claimant with effect from 18 March 2020.
-
First claim form presented
The claimant presented his first Employment Tribunal claim.
-
Final hearing commenced
The final hearing began but was adjourned part-heard after one day of the claimant's evidence.
-
Final hearing resumed
The final hearing resumed and continued until 19 December 2022.
-
Judgment issued
The tribunal dismissed all of the claimant's claims and found that the claimant had destroyed his own credibility.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant was subjected to race discrimination, victimisation, harassment, detriment for making protected disclosures, unfair dismissal, and breach of the right to be accompanied, and whether the respondent's conduct was due to the claimant's protected characteristics or protected acts.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed all of the claimant's claims in their entirety. The key reason was that the claimant had destroyed his own credibility by inventing allegations, creating false documents, and giving inconsistent evidence. The tribunal found that the claimant's conduct was unreasonable and that the breakdown in the employment relationship was caused by his own behaviour. The respondent was awarded costs on an indemnity basis due to the claimant's unreasonable conduct, including manufacturing evidence and making false allegations. No compensation was awarded as all claims failed.
Lessons & takeaways
- Claimants should be aware that making false allegations or creating false documents can destroy their credibility and lead to all claims being dismissed.
- Fixed-term contract workers with less than two years' continuous service cannot bring ordinary unfair dismissal claims, though they may still bring discrimination or whistleblowing claims.
- Tribunals can award costs against a party who acts unreasonably, including by manufacturing evidence or making false allegations.
- It is important to give consistent and truthful evidence; inconsistencies can undermine a claimant's entire case.
What this case shows in practice
This case illustrates the severe consequences that can follow when a tribunal finds that a claimant has fabricated evidence and made false allegations. The claimant, an IT project manager on a fixed-term contract, brought a wide range of claims against Warwickshire County Council, including race discrimination, victimisation, and whistleblowing detriment. However, the tribunal concluded that he had destroyed his own credibility by inventing allegations, creating false documents, and giving inconsistent evidence. As a result, all of his claims were dismissed.
What the losing side could have done differently
The claimant's fundamental mistake was to pursue a case based on allegations that the tribunal found to be untrue. Instead of focusing on legitimate grievances, he appears to have escalated the dispute by making increasingly serious accusations, including against the respondent's representatives. The tribunal noted that his conduct was unreasonable and that he had manufactured evidence. A more measured approach, supported by credible evidence, might have allowed the tribunal to consider his complaints on their merits. For the respondent, the case demonstrates the importance of maintaining clear documentation and following fair procedures, even when dealing with a difficult employee.
Why the result matters for similar claims
This case serves as a stark warning to claimants that tribunals will not tolerate dishonesty or the fabrication of evidence. It also highlights the limitations of bringing claims for fixed-term contract workers with less than two years' service, who cannot claim ordinary unfair dismissal. However, discrimination and whistleblowing claims remain available regardless of length of service, provided they are brought in good faith and supported by credible evidence. The award of costs on an indemnity basis underscores that tribunals have the power to penalise parties who act unreasonably, including by making false allegations.
Similar cases
Agency lawyer's race discrimination claims against council dismissed; costs ordered
An agency Contracts and Procurement Lawyer lost her race discrimination, harassment and victimisation claims against the London Borough of Waltham Forest. The tribunal also ordered her to pay costs for pursuing claims with no reasonable prospect of success.
Dismissed for unauthorised absence: race discrimination claims rejected
A former employee of John Lewis plc who was dismissed for unauthorised absence and failure to follow reporting procedures has lost her unfair dismissal and race discrimination claims. The tribunal also ordered her to pay £13,250 in costs.
Senior engineer made redundant after pandemic downturn: unfair dismissal due to opaque selection process
An employment tribunal found that Bechtel Ltd unfairly dismissed a senior electrical engineer during a redundancy process, ruling that the selection lacked transparency. The claimant's race, caste, and whistleblowing claims were dismissed.
Audit Assistant Manager loses constructive dismissal and race discrimination claim against Grant Thornton
An Audit Assistant Manager with 2 years' service who resigned after being placed on a performance improvement plan has lost his claims of constructive unfair dismissal, race discrimination and whistleblowing detriment. The tribunal found the employer had reasonable cause for its actions.