Whistleblowing and victimisation claims survive strike-out but deposit ordered
A tribunal refused to strike out a universal education facilitator's whistleblowing and victimisation claims against Turning Point, but ordered her to pay a £150 deposit for each to proceed.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #protected-disclosure
- #victimisation
- #deposit-order
- #strike-out-refused
- #time-limits
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as a universal education facilitator from 28 June 2021 to 22 June 2022.
- The claimant made several communications to managers about bullying, harassment, and confidentiality breaches.
- The claimant alleged she suffered detriments including a flawed grievance process and failure to stop bullying.
- The tribunal refused to strike out the claims but ordered deposit payments for the whistleblowing and victimisation complaints.
- The reasonable adjustments claim was not affected and will proceed.
Timeline
-
Employment started
Claimant began employment as a universal education facilitator at Turning Point.
-
First alleged protected disclosure
Claimant orally expressed concerns to Ruth Croft about Beth's emails and their impact on the service.
-
Further disclosures via email
Claimant sent emails to Ruth Croft, Kathy Eaton, and Janet Holmes alleging breach of confidentiality and impact on health.
-
Further email disclosures
Claimant emailed Janet Holmes and Ruth Croft about the impact on her health and trust in working relationships.
-
Email to stop contact
Claimant asked Janet Holmes and Ruth Croft to stop Kathy Eaton from emailing her.
-
Grievance raised against claimant
Kathy Eaton and Beth Bradshaw raised a grievance alleging bullying and harassment by the claimant.
-
Oral complaint of victimisation
Claimant told Ruth Croft that the grievance was being used to harass her and that she would prepare a grievance.
-
Resignation
Claimant resigned before receiving the outcome of the grievance investigation.
-
ET1 presented
Claimant presented her claim to the employment tribunal alleging detriment, unfair dismissal, and victimisation.
-
Preliminary hearing
Hearing to consider strike out and deposit applications. Tribunal refused strike out but ordered deposits for whistleblowing and victimisation claims.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant's complaints of detriment for making protected disclosures and victimisation had reasonable prospects of success, and whether they should be struck out or subject to a deposit order.
The outcome
The tribunal refused to strike out the whistleblowing and victimisation claims, but ordered the claimant to pay a £150 deposit for each to continue. The reasonable adjustments claim was unaffected and will proceed.
- The tribunal considered that the claims had little reasonable prospect of success but were not bound to fail.
- No compensation was awarded at this stage as it was a preliminary hearing on strike-out and deposit applications.
Lessons & takeaways
- If you believe you have been subjected to a detriment for whistleblowing, you must show a clear link between the protected disclosure and the alleged detriment.
- Tribunals may require a deposit if they consider your claim has little reasonable prospect of success, but this does not mean your claim is struck out.
- Keep detailed records of all communications and disclosures to support your claim of protected disclosure.
- Time limits are strict: you must present your claim to the tribunal within three months of the alleged detriment.
This case shows the hurdles claimants can face when bringing whistleblowing and victimisation claims. The universal education facilitator alleged she suffered detriments after raising concerns about bullying and confidentiality breaches. However, the tribunal found her claims had limited prospects of success, partly due to the difficulty in showing that the alleged detriments were caused by her disclosures.
What the tribunal decided
At a preliminary hearing, Turning Point applied to strike out the whistleblowing and victimisation claims. The tribunal refused, but ordered the claimant to pay a £150 deposit for each claim to proceed. This means the claims can continue, but the claimant must put money down as a safeguard against weak claims. The reasonable adjustments claim was not affected.
What could have been done differently
For the claimant, providing clearer evidence linking her disclosures to the alleged detriments might have strengthened her case. For the employer, a more transparent grievance process and addressing the claimant's concerns earlier could have avoided the dispute. The tribunal noted the complicated procedural history, which suggests both sides could have benefited from clearer communication.
Why this matters for similar claims
This case highlights that whistleblowing claims are not automatically strong just because a disclosure was made. Claimants must show that the disclosure was a material factor in the detriment. It also shows that tribunals will not strike out claims that have some chance of success, but may require a deposit to discourage weak claims. Anyone considering a whistleblowing claim should seek legal advice early and gather evidence of the disclosure and any subsequent treatment.
Similar cases
HR Business Partner dismissed after one month for whistleblowing: £74,540 awarded
An HR Business Partner who raised concerns about a flawed redundancy process was dismissed after just one month. The tribunal awarded £74,540 after striking out the employer's response.
Former IT professional's discrimination claim struck out after tampering with evidence
A tribunal struck out a former JP Morgan employee's discrimination claim after he inserted a poem into disclosed documents and sent the tampered version to the tribunal. Most allegations were also dismissed as out of time.
Race discrimination claim allowed to proceed over grievance process
A former IBM employee won permission to amend his race discrimination claim to include the grievance process, but earlier allegations were struck out as out of time.
Care worker's whistleblowing detriment claims dismissed after tribunal rejects late amendments
An employment tribunal dismissed a care worker's claims that he suffered detriments for making protected disclosures, and refused to allow him to add a religion/belief discrimination claim that was out of time.