HR advisor dismissed after whistleblowing: unfair dismissal but no compensation for lost earnings
A tribunal found that an NHS Trust unfairly dismissed a Human Resources Advisor who raised concerns about misuse of COVID-19 funds, but awarded only £12,606 after ruling she would have been dismissed anyway.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #protected-disclosure-detriment
- #whistleblowing
- #disability-discrimination
- #sosr
- #polkey-deduction
- #injury-to-feelings
Key facts
- The claimant made a protected disclosure orally on 13 April 2020 and by emails on 16 and 19 April 2020 about misuse of COVID-19 funds.
- The respondent subjected the claimant to three unlawful detriments on the ground of her protected disclosures.
- The claimant was dismissed on 25 May 2021 for some other substantial reason (breakdown in working relationships).
- The dismissal was unfair because the respondent failed to provide the claimant with witness statements from the investigation report.
- The tribunal found that had a fair procedure been followed, the claimant would inevitably have been dismissed on the same date.
- The claimant was awarded £12,606.15 in total compensation for unfair dismissal and unlawful detriments.
Timeline
-
Claimant started employment
Claimant began working as a Human Resources Advisor for the respondent.
-
First protected disclosure
Claimant orally disclosed to Amanda Laugharne that she overheard a conversation about misusing COVID-19 funds to create a Band 7 role for a named colleague.
-
Second protected disclosure
Claimant emailed Amanda Laugharne repeating her concerns about the misuse of COVID-19 funds.
-
Third protected disclosure
Claimant forwarded an email to Amanda Laugharne reiterating her concerns about the integrity of the HR team and misuse of NHS money.
-
Detrimental email from Mrs Grice
Mrs Grice sent the claimant an email accusing her of being aggressive and unpleasant towards managers, which was found to be an unlawful detriment.
-
Claimant went on sick leave
Claimant started long-term sick leave due to work-related stress and anxiety.
-
Claimant dismissed
Claimant was dismissed following a SOSR hearing due to irretrievable breakdown in working relationships.
-
Appeal hearing
Appeal panel offered redeployment but claimant did not accept; dismissal was upheld.
-
Liability judgment
Tribunal found unfair dismissal and three unlawful detriments, but dismissed most claims.
-
Remedy judgment
Tribunal awarded £12,606.15 in total compensation.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant was unfairly dismissed for a breakdown in working relationships (some other substantial reason), whether she suffered detriments for making protected disclosures about misuse of COVID-19 funds, and whether she was discriminated against because of something arising from her disability.
The outcome
The tribunal found the claimant was unfairly dismissed because the Trust did not give her the witness statements from the investigation report, which made the procedure unfair. However, it ruled that even with a fair process, she would have been dismissed on the same date for the breakdown in working relationships.
She also succeeded on three claims of detriment for whistleblowing: an email accusing her of being aggressive, a failure to offer occupational health referral, and uncritical acceptance of others' accounts. Other claims, including disability discrimination, were dismissed.
Compensation was:
- Basic award: £2,967.30
- Compensatory award: £1,528.86 (after 100% Polkey reduction for unfair dismissal, plus injury to feelings for detriments)
- Total: £12,606.15
Lessons & takeaways
- Whistleblowers are protected from detrimental treatment, but the reason for dismissal must be closely examined – a genuine breakdown in relationships may still justify dismissal.
- Failing to provide an employee with witness statements during a disciplinary process can make a dismissal procedurally unfair, even if the outcome would have been the same.
- Employers should consider offering occupational health referrals when an employee is on long-term sick leave, especially if they have made protected disclosures.
- A Polkey reduction can significantly reduce compensation if the tribunal finds the employee would have been dismissed anyway with a fair process.
- Injury to feelings awards for whistleblowing detriments can be modest if the detriments are relatively minor and short-lived.
Whistleblowing and dismissal: a mixed outcome
This case shows how difficult it can be for employees to win substantial compensation even when they prove unfair dismissal and whistleblowing detriment. The claimant, a Human Resources Advisor with five years' service, raised concerns about misuse of COVID-19 funds in April 2020. She was later subjected to three unlawful detriments, including an email accusing her of being aggressive and a failure to offer occupational health support.
What went wrong for the Trust
The Trust dismissed the claimant in May 2021, citing an irretrievable breakdown in working relationships. The tribunal found the dismissal was unfair because the Trust did not provide the claimant with the witness statements from the investigation report. This procedural failing meant she could not properly challenge the evidence against her. However, the tribunal also found that even with a fair process, the breakdown was so severe that she would have been dismissed anyway. This led to a 100% Polkey reduction, meaning she received no compensation for lost earnings from the unfair dismissal.
The whistleblowing detriments
The claimant succeeded on three detriment claims. The tribunal found that the Trust's Deputy HR Director sent an email accusing the claimant of behaving unpleasantly and aggressively towards managers, which was linked to her protected disclosures. Her line manager also deliberately failed to ask if she wanted an occupational health referral. And the Deputy HR Director accepted the accounts of other HR staff uncritically. These detriments resulted in an award for injury to feelings, but the amounts were modest.
Why this matters
For employees considering whistleblowing claims, this case is a reminder that proving detriment or unfair dismissal does not guarantee a large payout. The tribunal's finding that the claimant would have been dismissed anyway significantly limited her compensation. Employers, meanwhile, should note that procedural fairness matters – even if the outcome seems inevitable, failing to share key evidence can lead to a finding of unfair dismissal.
Similar cases
Estate agent with Crohn's disease wins constructive dismissal and disability discrimination claim
An estate agent with Crohn's disease was constructively dismissed and discriminated against after her employer sidelined her due to her disability. The tribunal awarded £46,652.74.
Dismissed after attending manager's home with white spirit: unfair but no compensation
A tribunal found that Open GI Ltd unfairly dismissed a disabled employee after he attended his manager's home with white spirit, but awarded no compensation due to his conduct. The employee received £2,805 for injury to feelings on a related discrimination claim.
MP dismissed senior advisor who raised concerns about misuse of parliamentary stationery
A senior advisor with 17 years' service was unfairly dismissed by her MP boss after making protected disclosures about misuse of parliamentary stationery and alleged criminal activity. The tribunal awarded £11,729.99 in compensation, reduced by 75% for contributory fault and a Polkey deduction.
Bus driver with Crohn's disease awarded £25,000 after employer failed to provide suitable shifts
A bus driver with over 30 years' service was awarded £25,000 after his employer repeatedly allocated shifts that did not meet his disability-related needs, causing him to soil himself at work.