Rumour-based protected disclosure claim struck out as having no reasonable prospect

When a rumour is not a protected disclosure

This case shows the strict requirements for a claim based on whistleblowing. The former employee told a senior manager in 2014 that a colleague was 'in bed' with a developer and that the relationship was corrupt. He believed this was a protected disclosure because corruption is a criminal offence. However, the tribunal found that the statement was based on rumours and lacked specific facts — it was not information that tended to show a legal breach, as required by the Employment Rights Act 1996.

Time limits and the risk of delay

The employee also claimed that a poor performance rating in 2014 was a detriment for making the disclosure. But he did not bring his claim until 2021 — about six years later. Employment tribunal claims for detriment must be brought within three months of the act complained of. The tribunal had no choice but to strike out this part of the claim as hopelessly out of time.

What the employer did right

Co-operative Group Limited applied to strike out the claims at an early stage, arguing they had no reasonable prospect of success. The tribunal agreed. The employee had been made redundant in 2020 and received a payment in lieu of notice, which meant his wrongful dismissal claim also failed — if your employer pays you for your notice period, you cannot claim you were denied notice.

Why this matters for similar claims

Whistleblowing claims are complex and require careful evidence. A genuine belief that something is wrong is not enough — the disclosure must convey specific information that the employee reasonably believes shows a legal breach. And time limits are strict: even if you later lose your job, you cannot bring a claim about an old detriment unless it is part of a continuing act. Anyone considering a whistleblowing claim should seek legal advice promptly and ensure their disclosure is based on concrete facts, not workplace rumours.