Chief Risk Officer dismissed after raising regulatory concerns: whistleblowing claim succeeds
A chief risk officer who repeatedly flagged breaches of his bank's risk management framework was automatically unfairly dismissed for making protected disclosures. The tribunal awarded £137,894 in compensation.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #protected-disclosure
- #public-interest
- #risk-management-framework
- #s166-notice
- #acas-code-uplift
- #polkey-deduction
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as Chief Risk Officer from July 2019 to 1 April 2021.
- The claimant made multiple protected disclosures about breaches of the bank's risk management framework and regulatory obligations.
- An initial decision to dismiss the claimant was made on 22 February 2021, during a meeting where the claimant's most recent protected disclosure was discussed.
- The tribunal found that the principal reason for dismissal was the claimant's protected disclosures.
- The tribunal applied a 40% Polkey reduction, finding it 40% likely the claimant would have been dismissed lawfully in any event.
- The respondents failed to follow any disciplinary process and did not offer a right of appeal.
Timeline
-
Employment started
Claimant began employment as Chief Risk Officer at United National Bank Ltd.
-
FCA attestation completed
Claimant completed his annual FCA attestation, stating he did not have adequate time to perform his role and that annual leave had been deferred.
-
Appraisal and Bloomberg licence email
Claimant received an 'A' grade appraisal. He also emailed about the need for Risk to have its own Bloomberg licence, which was found to be a protected disclosure (PD2).
-
Roshan Digital Account email
Claimant emailed the project lead about breaches of the New Product Approval Process, which was found to be a protected disclosure (PD10).
-
Nationwide trade email chain
Claimant emailed stating a trade breached credit limits and required sale, which was found to be a protected disclosure (PD6).
-
Initial decision to dismiss
At an INED and Management meeting, an initial decision was made to dismiss the claimant. The tribunal found this was because of his protected disclosures.
-
Claimant inadvertently informed of dismissal
Claimant received an email mistakenly informing him that the bank wished to terminate his employment.
-
Dismissal effective
Claimant's employment was terminated with immediate effect, with no disciplinary process or right of appeal.
-
Liability judgment
Tribunal found the first respondent automatically unfairly dismissed the claimant and that the respondents subjected him to the detriment of dismissal because of his protected disclosures.
-
Remedy hearing
Tribunal awarded total compensation of £137,894.37, including injury to feelings, past loss, ACAS uplift, and grossing up.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant was automatically unfairly dismissed and subjected to detriment because he made protected disclosures about breaches of the bank's risk management framework and regulatory obligations.
The outcome
The tribunal found that United National Bank Ltd automatically unfairly dismissed the claimant, its Chief Risk Officer, because he had made protected disclosures. The decision to dismiss was made at a meeting on 22 February 2021 where the claimant's most recent disclosure was discussed, and no disciplinary process was followed.
The tribunal awarded total compensation of £137,894.37, comprising:
- Compensatory award: £78,924.20 (after a 40% Polkey reduction for the chance of lawful dismissal)
- ACAS uplift: 25% for unreasonable failure to follow the ACAS Code of Practice
- Injury to feelings: £25,000
- Grossing up for tax: applied to the award
Lessons & takeaways
- Making protected disclosures about regulatory breaches can give strong protection against dismissal, even if you have less than two years' service.
- Employers should follow a proper disciplinary process and offer a right of appeal, especially when the employee has raised concerns about compliance.
- A decision to dismiss made shortly after a protected disclosure is likely to be scrutinised closely by tribunals.
- Failing to follow the ACAS Code of Practice can result in an uplift of up to 25% on compensation.
Whistleblowing protections in practice
This case shows how employment law protects employees who raise genuine concerns about regulatory compliance. The claimant, a Chief Risk Officer at United National Bank Ltd, repeatedly flagged breaches of the bank's risk management framework and regulatory obligations. Instead of addressing his concerns, the bank decided to dismiss him at a meeting where his most recent disclosure was discussed.
What the bank did wrong
The bank made several critical errors. It failed to follow any disciplinary process, did not offer a right of appeal, and made the decision to dismiss at a meeting that was not a formal disciplinary hearing. The tribunal found that the principal reason for dismissal was the protected disclosures, not any performance or conduct issues. The bank also ignored the ACAS Code of Practice on disciplinary procedures, leading to a 25% uplift on the compensatory award.
Why this matters for similar claims
This case reinforces that whistleblowing claims can succeed even where the employer argues there was a legitimate reason for dismissal. The tribunal applied a 40% Polkey reduction, meaning it was 40% likely the claimant would have been dismissed lawfully in any event – but the remaining 60% of the loss was still recoverable. For employees considering bringing a claim, this shows that even partial success can result in significant compensation, and that proper process is essential for employers facing whistleblowing allegations.
Similar cases
Senior director dismissed for whistleblowing after alleging director breaches
A senior director who made protected disclosures about a fellow director's breaches of duty was automatically unfairly dismissed. The tribunal awarded £121,601.88, including a 25% uplift for failing to follow the ACAS Code.
Dismissed without a disciplinary hearing: procedural unfairness costs employer £9,500
A former employee with two years' service was unfairly dismissed after being suspended and then sacked without any disciplinary hearing. The Cambridge tribunal awarded £9,546.81 in compensation.
Area manager dismissed for editing timesheet: procedural failures led to unfair dismissal finding
An area manager was unfairly dismissed after editing a timesheet, but the tribunal found the investigation was flawed and the disciplinary process lacked proper notice. He was awarded £8,026 after reductions for contributory conduct and a Polkey finding.
PCV driver dismissed after failing breath tests: flawed appeal but dismissal largely upheld
A PCV driver who failed three breath alcohol tests was unfairly dismissed due to a flawed appeal, but the tribunal found she would have been dismissed anyway and reduced compensation by 75% for contributory conduct.