Solicitor's whistleblowing claim struck out: no reasonable prospect of success
A solicitor who claimed he was dismissed for raising a GDPR concern had his protected disclosure claim struck out. The tribunal also found he lacked the two years' service needed for ordinary unfair dismissal.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #protected-disclosure
- #strike-out
- #costs-order
- #withdrawal-of-claims
- #jurisdiction
Key facts
- The claimant was a solicitor employed by the respondent from 10 February 2020.
- The claimant was given notice of dismissal on 16 June 2021 for performance and business issues.
- The claimant was summarily dismissed on 23 July 2021 for alleged gross misconduct.
- The claimant withdrew claims of sex and age discrimination at the preliminary hearing.
- The claimant agreed he lacked two years' continuity for ordinary unfair dismissal.
- The tribunal struck out the protected disclosure claim as having no reasonable prospect of success.
Timeline
-
Agency employment started
Claimant began working for respondent through an agency.
-
Direct employment started
Claimant became directly employed by respondent.
-
Notice of dismissal given
Respondent gave claimant notice of dismissal for performance and business issues, with expiry on 15 September 2021.
-
Claimant sent letter to solicitors
Claimant sent a letter raising concerns about potential GDPR breach.
-
Summary dismissal
Claimant was summarily dismissed for alleged gross misconduct involving abusive behaviour to a courier.
-
Claim form presented
Claimant filed claims of unfair dismissal, protected disclosure, and discrimination.
-
Case management preliminary hearing
Employment Judge Livesey made orders and listed a preliminary hearing for 29 November 2022.
-
Respondent's settlement offer
Respondent made a without prejudice offer to settle, reserving right to refer to it for costs.
-
Preliminary hearing
Employment Judge Craft heard the strike-out application and other matters.
-
Judgment issued
Tribunal dismissed claims and ordered claimant to pay £1,000 costs.
The legal issue
Whether the claimant's claim for automatic unfair dismissal for making protected disclosures should be struck out for having no reasonable prospect of success, and whether the claimant had sufficient continuity of employment to bring an ordinary unfair dismissal claim.
The outcome
The tribunal struck out the claimant's protected disclosure claim, finding it had no reasonable prospect of success. It also dismissed the ordinary unfair dismissal claim because the claimant did not have the required two years' continuous service.
- The claimant withdrew claims of sex and age discrimination at a preliminary hearing.
- The tribunal ordered the claimant to pay £1,000 in costs to the respondent.
Lessons & takeaways
- Employees with less than two years' continuous service generally cannot bring ordinary unfair dismissal claims, unless the reason is automatically unfair (e.g., whistleblowing).
- To succeed in a protected disclosure claim, the employee must show that the disclosure was the principal reason for dismissal; weak evidence will likely be struck out.
- Failing to comply with tribunal orders can lead to costs orders, even if the claim is not struck out.
- Settlement offers may be referred to for costs purposes if the claimant unreasonably rejects them and later loses.
This case shows the hurdles employees face when bringing whistleblowing claims without strong evidence. The claimant, a solicitor, argued he was summarily dismissed for raising a GDPR concern in a letter to his employer's solicitors. However, the respondent said he was dismissed for gross misconduct after making abusive remarks to a courier. The tribunal found the claimant's protected disclosure claim had no reasonable prospect of success, meaning it was unlikely to succeed even if all facts were proved.
What the tribunal considered
The key issue was whether the claimant's disclosure was the principal reason for dismissal. The tribunal noted that the claimant had already been given notice of dismissal for performance issues before the alleged disclosure. The summary dismissal occurred shortly after the letter, but the employer's explanation – misconduct towards a courier – was a separate incident. Without evidence linking the disclosure to the dismissal, the claim was struck out.
The importance of service length
The claimant also tried to bring an ordinary unfair dismissal claim, but he lacked two years' continuous service. He had been directly employed from February 2020, giving him only about 17 months by the time of dismissal. The tribunal confirmed it had no jurisdiction to hear this claim. This is a common trap for employees who assume all dismissals can be challenged – the two-year qualifying period is a strict requirement unless the dismissal is for an automatically unfair reason.
Costs order
Because the claimant pursued a weak claim and failed to comply with some case management orders, the tribunal ordered him to pay £1,000 in costs. This serves as a reminder that bringing a speculative claim can be financially risky, especially if the other side makes a settlement offer that is rejected.
Similar cases
Former employee's detriment claim struck out as abuse of process
A former employee's claim for protected disclosure detriment was struck out after the tribunal found the alleged acts were covered by judicial proceedings immunity and the claim was an abuse of process. A costs order of £20,000 was made.
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.
Claim struck out for failing to comply with tribunal orders
A former employee's unfair dismissal claim against Gateshead Health NHS Foundation Trust was struck out after he failed to comply with tribunal orders and did not respond to correspondence. He was ordered to pay £187.50 in costs.
Claims struck out after housing officer failed to serve witness statement
A former housing officer's unfair dismissal and discrimination claims were struck out after she repeatedly failed to serve a witness statement, despite extensions and warnings. She was also ordered to pay £3,870 in costs.