12-year council employee dismissed for non-disclosure and false information: tribunal rejects whistleblowing claim
A project coordinator with 12 years' service was fairly dismissed for failing to declare property ownership on a housing application and providing false information about his brother. The tribunal also dismissed his whistleblowing claim and ordered him to pay £5,000 in costs.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #whistleblowing
- #conduct-dismissal
- #non-disclosure
- #false-information
- #credibility
- #costs-order
Key facts
- The claimant was employed from 6 June 2005 to 13 July 2017 as a Project Coordinator.
- He was dismissed for failing to disclose property ownership on a housing application and providing false information about his relationship with his brother.
- The tribunal found his email of 4 April 2017 was not a qualifying disclosure as it was a personal complaint, not in the public interest.
- The claimant was not a credible witness and gave evasive, contradictory evidence.
- The respondent had reasonable grounds for dismissal based on a thorough investigation.
- The claimant was ordered to pay £5,000 in costs for unreasonable conduct.
Timeline
-
Employment started
Claimant began employment with London Borough of Southwark.
-
Property purchase
Claimant became joint owner of 32 Elm Avenue, Chatham, Kent.
-
Council tenancy granted
Claimant was granted a council tenancy without declaring his property ownership.
-
False email about brother
Claimant falsely told a senior manager he had no involvement with his brother Shibbir Choudhury.
-
Email to valuation office
Claimant sent an email complaining about the council's valuation of his flat, later claimed as a qualifying disclosure.
-
Suspended and sent home
Claimant was informed of fraud concerns and sent home for a cooling-off period; he deleted emails and a folder from his computer.
-
Investigation report
Investigation concluded four of five allegations should proceed to disciplinary hearing.
-
Disciplinary hearing day 1
First day of disciplinary hearing.
-
Dismissed
Claimant was dismissed with immediate effect for gross misconduct.
-
Appeal hearing
Appeal against dismissal was heard and rejected.
-
Claim presented
Claimant presented his claim to the employment tribunal.
-
Final hearing start
Substantive hearing began before Employment Judge Balogun.
-
Liability judgment
All claims dismissed.
-
Costs hearing
Hearing to consider respondent's costs application.
-
Costs judgment
Claimant ordered to pay £5,000 costs.
-
Reconsideration refused
Application for reconsideration of costs judgment refused.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant's email of 4 April 2017 was a qualifying disclosure under whistleblowing law, and if not, whether his dismissal for conduct was fair.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed all claims, including automatic unfair dismissal for whistleblowing and ordinary unfair dismissal. The key reasons were that the email was not a qualifying disclosure as it was a personal complaint not in the public interest, and the council had a genuine belief in the claimant's misconduct based on a reasonable investigation. The claimant was also ordered to pay £5,000 in costs for unreasonable conduct.
Lessons & takeaways
- To qualify as a protected disclosure, the information must be disclosed in the public interest, not just a personal grievance.
- Employers can fairly dismiss for conduct if they have a reasonable belief in misconduct after a thorough investigation, even if the employee denies it.
- Deleting emails or files after being notified of allegations can be used as evidence of guilt and may justify dismissal.
- Tribunals can award costs against claimants who pursue claims unreasonably, including where they are not credible witnesses.
A case about credibility and process
This case shows how an employee's lack of credibility and a robust employer investigation can defeat claims of unfair dismissal and whistleblowing. The claimant, a project coordinator with 12 years' service, was dismissed after the council discovered he had failed to declare his ownership of a property on a housing application and had provided false information about his brother's involvement. The tribunal found that the council had reasonable grounds to believe he had committed gross misconduct, based on a thorough investigation that included interviews and documentary evidence.
What the employer did right
The council followed its disciplinary procedure, including a cooling-off period, suspension, investigation, and a full disciplinary hearing with the opportunity for the claimant to respond. The investigation uncovered that the claimant had deleted emails and a folder from his computer on the day he was notified of the allegations, which the tribunal considered as evidence of guilt. The council also considered the claimant's long service but concluded that the misconduct was so serious that dismissal was within the range of reasonable responses.
Why the whistleblowing claim failed
The claimant argued that an email he sent to the council's valuation office was a protected disclosure about a breach of legal obligation. However, the tribunal found that the email was a personal complaint about the valuation of his own flat, not a disclosure made in the public interest. As a result, it was not a qualifying disclosure, and the whistleblowing claim failed. The tribunal also noted that the claimant was not a credible witness, giving evasive and contradictory evidence.
The costs order
In a separate judgment, the tribunal ordered the claimant to pay £5,000 in costs for unreasonable conduct in pursuing the proceedings. This serves as a reminder that claimants who bring weak claims or behave unreasonably risk being ordered to pay the other side's costs, which can be substantial.
Similar cases
Wasted costs application against NHS Trust solicitors dismissed after settlement agreement
A junior doctor's attempt to obtain a wasted costs order against the solicitors for an NHS Trust was dismissed because a 2018 settlement agreement precluded the application and there was no improper conduct.
Redundancy claim struck out for non-disclosure: costs of £6,853 awarded
A senior manager's unfair dismissal claim was struck out after he failed to disclose documents about his new job. The tribunal ordered him to pay £6,853 in costs for unreasonable conduct.
Nursery chef wins £276 after employer deducted nursery fees without permission
A nursery chef who was dismissed after raising concerns about nursery practices failed in her whistleblowing claims but succeeded in recovering £276.49 that her employer deducted from her wages for outstanding nursery fees without her written consent.
Whistleblowing and conduct dismissal: NHS trust's decision upheld
A Health Care Support Worker with four years' service was fairly dismissed for failing to treat a service user with dignity, the tribunal ruled, rejecting claims of whistleblowing detriment and race discrimination.