Whistleblowing claim dismissed: tribunal orders £2,000 costs for pursuing case with no prospects
A former employee's claim for automatic unfair dismissal based on alleged protected disclosures was dismissed, and she was ordered to pay £2,000 in costs for pursuing a case with no reasonable prospects.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
Key facts
- The claimant's claim for automatic unfair dismissal was dismissed.
- The claimant failed to establish that she had made any protected disclosures.
- The respondent applied for costs, arguing the claim had no reasonable prospects of success and the claimant acted unreasonably.
- The tribunal found the claim had no reasonable prospects of success from the outset.
- The claimant focused on identifying the person who complained about her tweets rather than the issues in the case.
- The claimant was ordered to pay costs of £2,000.
Timeline
-
Preliminary Hearing
A preliminary hearing was held before Employment Judge Mark Butler, where the claimant's focus on the identity of the complainant was noted.
-
Liability Hearing Day 1
The substantive hearing began at Manchester Employment Tribunal.
-
Liability Hearing Day 2
The hearing continued.
-
Liability Hearing Day 3 and Oral Judgment
The hearing concluded. The tribunal orally dismissed the claimant's claims for automatic unfair dismissal.
-
Judgment sent to parties
The written record of the liability judgment was sent to the parties.
-
Claimant's submissions on costs
The claimant emailed her submissions opposing the respondent's costs application, stating she was not working and unable to pay.
-
Costs Judgment
Employment Judge Mark Butler, on the papers, ordered the claimant to pay costs of £2,000.
-
Costs judgment sent to parties
The written record of the costs judgment was sent to the parties.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the former employee had made protected disclosures and whether her dismissal was automatically unfair. It also considered whether to award costs against her for pursuing a claim with no reasonable prospects and acting unreasonably.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed the former employee's claim for automatic unfair dismissal. She had alleged that she was dismissed for making protected disclosures, but the tribunal found she had not made any protected disclosures.
The respondent applied for costs, arguing the claim had no reasonable prospects of success and the claimant had acted unreasonably. The tribunal agreed and ordered the former employee to pay £2,000 in costs.
- Costs order: £2,000
Lessons & takeaways
- To bring a successful whistleblowing claim, you must be able to show that you made a qualifying disclosure that you reasonably believed was in the public interest.
- Pursuing a claim that has no reasonable prospects of success can lead to a costs order against you, even if you are representing yourself.
- Focusing on peripheral issues, such as the identity of a complainant, rather than the legal merits of your case, can harm your credibility and increase the risk of costs.
- If you are ordered to pay costs, the tribunal will consider your ability to pay, but limited means does not automatically prevent a costs order.
This case shows the risks of pursuing an employment tribunal claim without a solid legal basis. The former employee alleged she was automatically unfairly dismissed for making protected disclosures, but the tribunal found she had not made any qualifying disclosures. Her case focused on identifying who had complained about her tweets, rather than the legal issues at hand.
What the tribunal decided
The tribunal dismissed the claim in full. It also granted the employer's application for costs, finding that the claim had no reasonable prospects of success from the outset and that the former employee had acted unreasonably in the way she conducted the proceedings. She was ordered to pay £2,000.
What the losing side could have done differently
The former employee could have sought early legal advice to assess whether her disclosures met the legal test for protection. Instead, she pursued a claim that the tribunal described as having no reasonable prospects. She also focused on a side issue—the identity of the person who complained about her tweets—rather than the core question of whether she had made a protected disclosure.
Why this matters for similar claims
Whistleblowing claims are complex. To succeed, you must show that you made a qualifying disclosure (usually about a legal obligation, danger, or wrongdoing) and that you reasonably believed it was in the public interest. This case is a reminder that tribunals will not hesitate to award costs against claimants who pursue weak claims unreasonably, even if they are representing themselves.
Similar cases
Deposit order not paid: whistleblowing claim struck out, costs awarded
A former employee's claim for automatically unfair dismissal was struck out after she failed to pay a £500 deposit ordered by the tribunal. The GP surgery also won costs of £3,036.
Former employee's claims struck out as out of time and for unreasonable conduct
A former employee's unfair dismissal, whistleblowing and discrimination claims have been struck out after being brought too late, with the tribunal also citing unreasonable conduct. The respondent was awarded £5,000 in costs.
Costs of £15,165 for pursuing baseless claims: a warning on unreasonable conduct
A former employee who brought discrimination and harassment claims with no basis in fact has been ordered to pay £15,165 in costs after the tribunal found her conduct vexatious and unreasonable.
Carpet fitter ordered to pay £12,950 costs after pursuing disability claim with no reasonable prospect of success
A tribunal ordered a former carpet fitter to pay £12,950 in costs after he pursued disability discrimination and unfair dismissal claims that were out of time and based on untruthful evidence. His former solicitors were also ordered to pay £1,600 in wasted costs.