MP dismissed senior advisor who raised concerns about misuse of parliamentary stationery
A senior advisor with 17 years' service was unfairly dismissed by her MP boss after making protected disclosures about misuse of parliamentary stationery and alleged criminal activity. The tribunal awarded £11,729.99 in compensation, reduced by 75% for contributory fault and a Polkey deduction.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #protected-disclosure
- #whistleblowing
- #isolation
- #marginalisation
- #polkey-deduction
- #contributory-conduct
- #injury-to-feelings
Key facts
- The claimant worked for the respondent MP for over 17 years.
- The claimant made a protected disclosure in August 2019 about misuse of parliamentary stationery.
- The claimant made a further protected disclosure in January 2020 about alleged criminal activity by a colleague.
- The claimant was dismissed on 27 January 2021 for gross misconduct relating to five allegations.
- The tribunal found the dismissal procedurally unfair because the respondent acted as investigator, disciplinary officer and appeal officer.
- The tribunal found the claimant was marginalised and isolated from January 2020 due to her protected disclosures.
Timeline
-
Claimant started work
Ms Cohen began working for Mr Mahmood MP as a senior advisor.
-
First protected disclosure
Claimant emailed respondent about misuse of parliamentary stationery by Saraya Hussain to deceive DVLA.
-
Abusive phone call from Hussain
Saraya Hussain called claimant aggressively; claimant reported this to respondent.
-
Third protected disclosure
Claimant told respondent about allegations of criminal exploitation, blackmail and fraud by Hussain; respondent threatened to sack her.
-
HR consultant instructed
Respondent instructed Lynda Rollason to investigate claimant's conduct.
-
Claimant suspended
Respondent suspended claimant pending investigation into gross misconduct allegations.
-
Dismissal
Respondent dismissed claimant with immediate effect for gross misconduct based on five allegations.
-
Appeal dismissed
Respondent upheld dismissal on appeal.
-
Liability judgment
Tribunal found unfair dismissal and protected disclosure detriment (marginalisation) succeeded; other claims dismissed.
-
Remedy judgment
Tribunal awarded £11,729.99 total compensation after 75% Polkey and 75% contributory deductions.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the senior advisor was unfairly dismissed for gross misconduct and whether she suffered detriment for making protected disclosures about misuse of parliamentary stationery and alleged criminal activity by a colleague.
The outcome
The tribunal found the dismissal was procedurally unfair because the MP acted as investigator, disciplinary officer and appeal officer, breaching the requirement for impartiality. However, the tribunal also found the employee contributed 75% to her dismissal through her conduct, and applied a 75% Polkey reduction on the basis she would have been dismissed in any event in a fair process.
Compensation:
- Basic award: £3,429.75
- Compensatory award: £2,310.24
- Total: £11,729.99 (after deductions)
The claim for detriment due to protected disclosure (marginalisation and isolation) succeeded, but other claims including automatic unfair dismissal and discrimination were dismissed.
Lessons & takeaways
- An employer must not act as investigator, disciplinary officer and appeal officer in the same case – impartiality is key to a fair process.
- Making protected disclosures does not give blanket immunity from dismissal if the employee's own conduct contributed significantly to the decision.
- Long-serving employees deserve careful process, but a fair procedure may still lead to dismissal if the conduct is serious enough.
- Tribunals can apply substantial Polkey reductions if they believe a fair process would have reached the same outcome.
When process fails but conduct matters
This case shows how a procedurally unfair dismissal can still result in limited compensation when the employee's own actions contributed to the outcome. The senior advisor, who had worked for the MP for 17 years, raised concerns about misuse of parliamentary stationery and alleged criminal activity by a colleague. Instead of being protected, she was marginalised and later dismissed for gross misconduct.
The tribunal found the dismissal unfair because the MP acted as investigator, disciplinary officer and appeal officer – a clear breach of natural justice. However, the tribunal also found the employee contributed 75% to her dismissal through her conduct, and that she would have been dismissed anyway in a fair process. This meant the compensation was heavily reduced.
What the employer could have done differently
The MP could have avoided unfairness by appointing an independent investigator and a separate decision-maker. Even with the same outcome, a fair process would have protected the employer from a finding of unfair dismissal. The case also highlights the importance of documenting investigations and communicating findings to the employee.
Why this matters for similar claims
This case is a reminder that whistleblowing protection is not absolute. While employees are protected from detriment for making protected disclosures, they can still be fairly dismissed for misconduct if the employer follows a fair process. The substantial Polkey and contributory deductions here show that tribunals will look closely at the employee's own conduct, even in whistleblowing cases.
Similar cases
Dismissed after attending manager's home with white spirit: unfair but no compensation
A tribunal found that Open GI Ltd unfairly dismissed a disabled employee after he attended his manager's home with white spirit, but awarded no compensation due to his conduct. The employee received £2,805 for injury to feelings on a related discrimination claim.
HR advisor dismissed after whistleblowing: unfair dismissal but no compensation for lost earnings
A tribunal found that an NHS Trust unfairly dismissed a Human Resources Advisor who raised concerns about misuse of COVID-19 funds, but awarded only £12,606 after ruling she would have been dismissed anyway.
Teacher awarded £2,500 after chair of governors' email suggested counter-proceedings
A teacher at a special needs school succeeded in a whistleblowing detriment claim after the chair of governors sent an email suggesting counter-proceedings against him, which was accidentally disclosed. The tribunal awarded £2,500 for injury to feelings.
CEO made redundant after protected disclosures: procedural unfairness in rejecting reduced-hours alternative
A CEO with 7 years' service was unfairly dismissed when his employer rejected his proposed reduced-hours alternative without proper consideration. The tribunal found the redundancy process procedurally flawed but applied a 75% Polkey deduction.