Surveyor loses whistleblowing claim but wins notice pay after redundancy
A surveyor who argued he was dismissed for raising health and safety concerns about excessive driving has lost his automatic unfair dismissal claim, but won £1,500 for unpaid notice.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as a surveyor from 15 December 2018 to 13 October 2020.
- The claimant made a protected disclosure in a letter dated 15 August 2020 about health and safety risks from excessive driving.
- The respondent dismissed the claimant by reason of redundancy due to the Covid-19 pandemic.
- The claimant did not have two years' continuous service, so only automatic unfair dismissal (whistleblowing) was in issue.
- The tribunal found the principal reason for dismissal was redundancy, not the protected disclosure.
- The respondent conceded the claimant was entitled to one month's notice pay instead of one week, resulting in a breach of contract award of £1,500.
Timeline
-
Employment started
Claimant began his second period of employment with Peter Cox Ltd as a surveyor.
-
Road traffic accident
Claimant suffered a right shoulder injury in a car accident.
-
Covid-19 pandemic begins
National lockdown led to a significant reduction in the respondent's business.
-
Furlough leave
Claimant and most colleagues were placed on furlough.
-
First round of redundancies
Two office workers and two surveyors were made redundant in the South region.
-
Protected disclosure letter
Claimant wrote to his line manager Mr Mann raising concerns about excessive driving and health and safety risks.
-
Welfare meeting and redundancy announcement
At a welfare meeting, Miss Hill informed the claimant that his role was being considered for redundancy.
-
First consultation meeting
Claimant attended a redundancy consultation meeting; he objected to the process.
-
Second consultation meeting
Further discussions about workload and surveyor coverage.
-
Third consultation meeting and dismissal
Claimant was informed he would be dismissed by reason of redundancy.
-
Dismissal effective
Claimant's employment terminated by reason of redundancy.
-
Appeal hearing
Mr Milburn heard the claimant's appeal and upheld the redundancy decision.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the surveyor's dismissal was automatically unfair because the principal reason was his protected disclosure about health and safety risks, or whether it was genuinely due to redundancy caused by the Covid-19 pandemic.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed the whistleblowing unfair dismissal claim, finding that the redundancy was genuine and the protected disclosure was not the principal reason for dismissal.
However, the employer conceded that the surveyor was entitled to one month's notice pay instead of the one week paid, resulting in a breach of contract award.
- Breach of contract (notice pay): £1,500
Lessons & takeaways
- Employees with less than two years' service cannot bring ordinary unfair dismissal claims, but can still claim automatic unfair dismissal if the reason is a protected disclosure or other automatically unfair grounds.
- A protected disclosure must be the principal reason for dismissal to succeed in a whistleblowing claim; if a genuine redundancy is the main reason, the claim will fail.
- Employers should ensure they pay the correct notice period under the contract, even if the employee has short service, to avoid breach of contract claims.
- Documenting the redundancy process clearly, including the business reasons and selection criteria, helps defend against allegations that the real reason was something else.
This case illustrates the difficulty of proving that a dismissal was automatically unfair because of a protected disclosure, particularly when there is a genuine redundancy situation.
What happened
The surveyor, who had worked for Peter Cox Ltd for just under two years, wrote to his line manager in August 2020 raising concerns about health and safety risks from excessive driving. Shortly afterwards, the company began a redundancy process due to the Covid-19 pandemic, and he was dismissed in October 2020. He claimed the real reason was his whistleblowing, but the tribunal found that the redundancy was genuine and the principal reason for dismissal.
What the employer did right and wrong
Peter Cox Ltd had a clear business case for redundancies – the pandemic had significantly reduced work. It consulted with the surveyor and considered alternatives. However, it conceded that it had underpaid his notice entitlement, paying one week instead of the contractual one month. This mistake cost it £1,500.
Why this matters
For employees, this case is a reminder that whistleblowing claims require the protected disclosure to be the main reason for dismissal – not just a factor. For employers, it shows that even when a redundancy is genuine, getting the notice pay wrong can lead to a successful breach of contract claim, even if the unfair dismissal claim fails.
Similar cases
Self-isolation pay owed but whistleblowing unfair dismissal claim fails
A personal assistant who was required to stay home after her son developed a cough was owed £110.79 in pay, but her whistleblowing unfair dismissal claim was rejected because the redundancy decision came before the protected disclosure.
Kitchen manager dismissed without consultation in redundancy: unfair dismissal
A kitchen manager with two years' service was unfairly dismissed when her employer made her redundant without any consultation or warning. The tribunal awarded £4,809.49 in compensation.
Butcher awarded £11,871 after redundancy dismissal with no notice or holiday pay
A former butcher won £11,871 after his employer failed to pay notice, holiday pay, or a redundancy payment and did not attend the tribunal hearing.
Healthcare assistant with 3 months' service wins wrongful dismissal claim for notice pay
A healthcare assistant who was dismissed without notice after just three months has been awarded £480 in notice pay. The tribunal rejected his other claims for automatic unfair dismissal, sex discrimination, and breach of contract.