Head of Research dismissed for redundancy after whistleblowing: gross misconduct process was a detriment

A whistleblower's redundancy turned sour

The claimant, Head of Research and Head of China Product at Everbright Sun Hung Kai (UK) Company Limited, was told his role was at risk of redundancy in September 2019. Days later, he made protected disclosures about a withdrawn investment recommendation, alleging regulatory breaches. The redundancy went ahead, but the employer then launched a disciplinary process over the claimant's deletion of files from the company system, finding him guilty of gross misconduct and referring him to the FCA.

What the tribunal decided

The tribunal accepted that the redundancy was genuine – the employer no longer needed the role in London. The unfair dismissal claim therefore failed. However, the tribunal found that the disciplinary process and the FCA referral were unlawful detriments because they were partly motivated by the claimant's whistleblowing. The employer's decision to discipline and refer him, even if based on genuine misconduct, crossed the line when the protected disclosures were a material factor.

What could have been done differently

The employer could have separated the redundancy process from the disciplinary investigation more clearly. If the claimant's file deletion was a genuine concern, it should have been investigated independently of the whistleblowing context. The FCA referral, while perhaps required, should have been handled with awareness of the whistleblowing claims. A fairer process might have avoided the finding of detriment.

Why this matters

This case shows that whistleblowers can succeed in claims for detriment even if their dismissal is fair. The protections under the Employment Rights Act 1996 extend to any detriment suffered because of a protected disclosure, not just dismissal. Employers must be careful not to let whistleblowing influence disciplinary decisions or regulatory referrals, or they risk significant compensation awards.