Redundancy dismissal upheld despite protected disclosure: tribunal rejects discrimination and whistleblowing claims
An associate director lost her unfair dismissal, race and sex discrimination, and whistleblowing claims after being made redundant. The tribunal found the redundancy was genuine and the claims were mostly out of time.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as Client Service Manager, then Associate Director – Global Services from 1 September 2016 until dismissal on 5 January 2021.
- The respondent asserted the dismissal was due to redundancy as part of the Vistra Model Office restructuring.
- The claimant made two alleged protected disclosures on 20 February 2019 and 3 May 2019.
- The tribunal found the 20 February 2019 email was not a protected disclosure; the 3 May 2019 email was a protected disclosure.
- All claims were dismissed: unfair dismissal, race and sex discrimination, and whistleblowing detriment.
- The claimant was ordered to pay costs of £10,000, with deposits forfeited.
Timeline
-
Employment started
Claimant began work as Client Service Manager at Vistra International Expansion Ltd.
-
Grievance lodged
Claimant brought a grievance alleging discrimination and unfair treatment.
-
Promotion to Associate Director
Claimant was promoted to Associate Director – Global Services with effect from 1 November 2017.
-
First alleged protected disclosure
Claimant emailed HR about staff shortages and health and safety concerns.
-
Second alleged protected disclosure
Claimant reported an IT security breach (GDPR) to Tony Campbell.
-
Ben Fielding left
Claimant's line manager Ben Fielding departed the company.
-
Suspension
Claimant was suspended following client complaints about her communication style.
-
Written warning
Claimant received a written warning for misconduct (not gross) regarding TMS emails.
-
Redundancy consultation started
First consultation meeting regarding potential redundancy.
-
Dismissal confirmed
Claimant was dismissed by reason of redundancy with notice ending 5 January 2021.
-
Claim presented
Claimant presented her claim to the employment tribunal.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant was unfairly dismissed, subjected to race or sex discrimination, or subjected to detriment for making protected disclosures, and whether any claims were within the time limits.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed all claims. The redundancy was found to be genuine and the selection process fair. The discrimination and whistleblowing claims were mostly out of time, and the one protected disclosure found to have been made did not lead to any detriment. The claimant was ordered to pay costs of £10,000, with deposits forfeited.
Lessons & takeaways
- Employment tribunal claims must be brought within strict time limits – usually three months minus one day from the act complained of.
- A genuine redundancy situation can be a fair reason for dismissal even if the employee has previously made a protected disclosure.
- Making a protected disclosure does not automatically protect an employee from a fair redundancy process.
- Tribunals can order deposit orders and costs against claimants who pursue weak claims.
- Representing yourself in a complex multi-claim case carries significant risks, especially when the respondent has legal representation.
A redundancy that survived multiple challenges
The case shows how a genuine redundancy process can withstand claims of discrimination and whistleblowing. The associate director had raised concerns about staff shortages and an IT security breach, but the tribunal found that the redundancy was a genuine restructuring and not a response to those disclosures.
Time limits were a key barrier
The tribunal ruled that most of the discrimination and whistleblowing claims were brought too late. Only the unfair dismissal claim was within time. This highlights the importance of acting quickly if you believe you have been discriminated against or suffered a detriment for whistleblowing.
What the employer did right
Vistra International Expansion Ltd conducted a consultation process, considered alternative roles, and had a genuine business reason for the redundancy. The tribunal accepted that the selection criteria were objective and fairly applied. The employer also had a written warning on file for the claimant's conduct, which was not related to the disclosures.
The cost of pursuing weak claims
The claimant was ordered to pay £10,000 in costs, and had to forfeit deposits she had paid earlier. This serves as a warning that tribunals can penalise claimants who pursue claims with little reasonable prospect of success.
Similar cases
Late claim form costs employee unfair dismissal case despite discrimination claims proceeding
A senior customer service adviser with less than two years' service had his unfair dismissal claim thrown out for being presented 4.5 months late, but his discrimination claims will proceed to a full hearing.
HR Business Partner dismissed after one month for whistleblowing: £74,540 awarded
An HR Business Partner who raised concerns about a flawed redundancy process was dismissed after just one month. The tribunal awarded £74,540 after striking out the employer's response.
Deputy Design Director loses redundancy and discrimination claims against Greenland UK
A deputy design director who brought claims of unfair dismissal, discrimination, harassment, victimisation, and unlawful deduction from wages after being made redundant has lost all her claims at the London Central Employment Tribunal.
Redundancy dismissal and victimisation claims fail: law enforcement officer loses tribunal case
A law enforcement officer with four years' service was fairly dismissed by redundancy and his claims of race and age discrimination, harassment, and victimisation were dismissed by the tribunal.