Whistleblowing claims dismissed: council's breakdown of trust was genuine
A Community Development Manager who claimed she was dismissed for whistleblowing lost her case. The tribunal found the council's decision was due to an irretrievable breakdown in working relationships, not her protected disclosures.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as Community Development Manager from 3 February 2019 to 17 January 2021.
- The respondent accepted the first five alleged protected disclosures were qualifying disclosures.
- The sixth alleged protected disclosure about food bags was found not to be a protected disclosure.
- The claimant was suspended twice and an independent investigation was commissioned.
- The claimant was dismissed on grounds of some other substantial reason due to irretrievable breakdown of working relationships.
- The tribunal dismissed all claims, finding no detriment or dismissal caused by protected disclosures.
Timeline
-
Employment started
Claimant began work as Community Development Manager for Spelthorne Borough Council.
-
First protected disclosure
Claimant disclosed insecure handling of confidential documents to Data Protection Lead.
-
Second protected disclosure
Claimant disclosed bullying of a colleague in the Independent Living Team to Deborah Ashman.
-
Third protected disclosure
Claimant disclosed fire safety breaches during construction work to managers and Chief Executive.
-
Fourth protected disclosure
Claimant disclosed risk of asbestos exposure to Deborah Ashman.
-
Probationary review passed
Claimant passed six-month probationary review with comments about boundaries and battles.
-
Fifth protected disclosure
Claimant disclosed that SPAN personal alarm system was not properly serviced.
-
Phone call with managers
Claimant had a heated two-hour phone call with Deborah Ashman and Karen Sinclair about quiz night comments and other issues.
-
Sixth alleged protected disclosure
Claimant sent a written account of a dispute with Jayne Brownlow about food bags loaned by a food bank.
-
First suspension and investigation
Claimant was suspended on paid leave and an independent investigation was commissioned; suspension lifted the next day.
-
Investigation reports issued
Jennifer McNeill produced reports finding no protected disclosure and a breakdown in working relationships.
-
Second suspension
Claimant was suspended again pending a formal hearing into the breakdown of working relationships.
-
Hearing in claimant's absence
Formal hearing held without the claimant due to ill health; she was dismissed.
-
Dismissal effective
Claimant's employment ended with one week's notice.
-
Appeal hearing
Appeal against dismissal heard by Chief Executive Daniel Mouawad; appeal refused on 20 May 2021.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant was subjected to detriments or dismissed because she made protected disclosures, and whether two of her alleged disclosures were actually protected.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed all claims. It found that while five of the claimant's disclosures were protected, the council's actions—including suspension, investigation, and dismissal—were not motivated by those disclosures. Instead, the dismissal was due to an irretrievable breakdown in working relationships, which the tribunal accepted as a genuine 'some other substantial reason' for dismissal.
No compensation was awarded as all claims failed.
Lessons & takeaways
- Making a protected disclosure does not automatically protect you from dismissal if there is a genuine breakdown in working relationships.
- Employers can rely on 'some other substantial reason' to dismiss if relationships have broken down irretrievably, even if the employee has made protected disclosures.
- If you are dismissed for conduct or relationship issues, you must show that the protected disclosure was the real reason, not just that it existed.
- Keep clear records of any negative treatment after a disclosure to help prove causation.
When whistleblowing isn't the reason for dismissal
This case shows that even when an employee has made genuine protected disclosures, a dismissal can still be fair if the employer has a separate, genuine reason. The claimant, a Community Development Manager with two years' service, raised concerns about data security, bullying, fire safety, asbestos, and a personal alarm system. The council accepted these were protected disclosures. However, the tribunal found that the real reason for her dismissal was an irretrievable breakdown in working relationships, not the disclosures.
What the employer did right
Spelthorne Borough Council commissioned an independent investigation, which concluded that working relationships had broken down. The tribunal noted that the investigator's reports did not recommend dismissal based on the disclosures. The council then held a formal hearing and an appeal, both of which upheld the dismissal on grounds of relationship breakdown. The tribunal accepted that this was a genuine 'some other substantial reason' for dismissal, and that the council acted reasonably in treating it as sufficient.
What the claimant could have done differently
The claimant argued that the breakdown was caused by her disclosures, but the tribunal disagreed. It found that her conduct—including a heated phone call and a dispute about food bank bags—contributed to the breakdown independently of the disclosures. To succeed in a whistleblowing claim, an employee must show that the disclosure was the reason for the treatment. Here, the tribunal was satisfied that the council's actions were not motivated by the disclosures.
Key takeaway for employees
Whistleblowing protection is strong, but it is not absolute. If an employer can show a separate, genuine reason for dismissal—such as a breakdown in relationships—the claim may fail. Employees who raise concerns should also be mindful of their conduct and ensure they can link any negative treatment directly to the disclosure.
Similar cases
Trainee car salesman loses whistleblowing claim over father's email to CEO
A trainee car sales executive with 2.5 months' service failed to prove he made a protected disclosure when his father sent an email to the CEO alleging fraud. The tribunal found the email was not a disclosure by the claimant and was not in the public interest.
Whistleblowing claim over covid safety fails: tribunal finds employer's actions were about cryptocurrency miners
A mechanical technician who raised covid-19 safety concerns was investigated for setting up cryptocurrency miners on site. The tribunal dismissed his whistleblowing claim, finding the investigation was about the miners, not his disclosures.
Whistleblower unfairly dismissed after being set unattainable targets
A senior underwriter with 17 years' service was unfairly dismissed after raising concerns about a potentially fraudulent claim. The tribunal found the employer failed to investigate whether the performance targets were reasonable.
Whistleblowing protections for contract workers: detriments and dismissal upheld
A contract worker who raised health and safety concerns was subjected to detriments and dismissed. The tribunal found he was a worker, not an employee, but still protected under whistleblowing law.