Whistleblowing claims survive strike-out but three allegations face deposit orders
A tribunal has allowed a former hotel employee to amend his whistleblowing claim but ordered deposits of £50 each for three allegations it found had little reasonable prospect of success.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
Key facts
- The claimant made disclosures to Mrs Trinder about Ms Trinder taking money from the company, affecting cash flow and ability to pay VAT.
- The claimant was dismissed in 2020, initially for redundancy and later for gross misconduct.
- The claimant alleged the dismissals were because of his protected disclosures.
- The tribunal refused to strike out the whistleblowing claims against the first and third respondents.
- The tribunal ordered the claimant to pay deposits of £50 each for three specific allegations with little reasonable prospect of success.
- The limitation issue was deferred to the final hearing.
Timeline
-
First disclosure
Claimant told Mrs Trinder about cash flow issues and the company's ability to pay VAT.
-
Second disclosure
Further disclosure about cash flow and VAT.
-
Third disclosure
Further disclosure about cash flow and VAT.
-
Fourth disclosure
Further disclosure about cash flow and VAT.
-
Disclosure about Ms Trinder's withdrawals
Between June and November 2018, claimant raised concerns about money Ms Trinder was taking from the company.
-
Disclosure to bank manager
Claimant told Mrs Trinder and the bank manager that Ms Trinder was taking too much money, affecting rent and VAT payments.
-
Final disclosure
Claimant raised concerns about Ms Trinder's cash flow and fear of being unlawfully removed.
-
Alleged detriment begins
Claimant alleges failure to follow fair redundancy process from 22 June to 1 July 2020.
-
First dismissal
Claimant was dismissed, allegedly for redundancy.
-
Second dismissal
Claimant was summarily dismissed for gross misconduct after disciplinary process.
-
Claim presented
Claimant presented his claim to the employment tribunal.
-
Preliminary hearing day 1
Hearing to consider strike-out, deposit orders, and limitation issues.
-
Judgment issued
Employment Judge Dyal issued reserved judgment allowing amendment, refusing strike-out, and ordering deposits.
The legal issue
Whether the claimant's disclosures about financial irregularities were protected disclosures and whether he was dismissed because of them, and whether certain claims were brought outside the three-month time limit.
The outcome
The tribunal allowed the claimant to amend his claim to allege that the second and third respondents dismissed him because of his protected disclosures.
The tribunal refused to strike out any of the whistleblowing claims, finding they had a reasonable prospect of success. However, it ordered the claimant to pay deposits of £50 each for three specific allegations:
- That the disclosures tended to show a miscarriage of justice was likely to occur
- That concerns were deliberately concealed from Mrs Trinder by Ms Trinder
- That the second respondent subjected the claimant to detriment because of his disclosures
The limitation issue – whether some claims were brought too late – was deferred to the final hearing, as it could not be decided without hearing the main evidence.
Lessons & takeaways
- Whistleblowing claims can survive strike-out even if some specific allegations are weak, as long as the core claim has reasonable prospects.
- Tribunals may order deposit payments for allegations with little reasonable prospect of success, which must be paid or the allegations are dismissed.
- Limitation issues in whistleblowing cases are often deferred to the final hearing when they depend on disputed facts.
- Amendments to add new legal bases for a claim are often allowed if they arise from the same facts and do not prejudice the respondent.
Whistleblowing claim survives early challenges
A former employee of Bingham Hotel and Restaurant Ltd raised concerns about money being taken from the company by Ms Trinder, affecting cash flow and the ability to pay VAT. After being dismissed – first for redundancy and then for gross misconduct – he claimed those dismissals were because of his protected disclosures.
At a preliminary hearing, the respondents sought to strike out the whistleblowing claims entirely, arguing they had no reasonable prospect of success. The tribunal refused, allowing the claims to proceed to a full hearing. However, it identified three specific allegations that appeared weak and ordered the claimant to pay a £50 deposit for each – a common mechanism to discourage weak claims while allowing stronger ones to continue.
What the tribunal decided
The tribunal also allowed the claimant to amend his claim to include a specific legal argument that the second and third respondents dismissed him because of his disclosures. This amendment was permitted because it arose from the same facts already pleaded and did not prejudice the respondents.
On the question of time limits, the tribunal noted that some alleged detriments occurred before July 2020, more than three months before the claim was presented in December 2020. However, it decided that this issue could only be resolved after hearing the full evidence, so it was deferred to the final hearing.
What this means for similar claims
This case shows that whistleblowing claims are not easily thrown out at an early stage, even if some specific allegations are weak. The tribunal will carefully separate the core claim from peripheral arguments. It also highlights that deposit orders can be used to manage weak allegations without striking out the entire case. For anyone considering a whistleblowing claim, it is important to identify the strongest disclosures and ensure claims are brought within the three-month time limit, though the tribunal may extend time if it is just and equitable to do so.
Similar cases
Site Manager with 8 months' service loses unfair dismissal claim
A site manager who was dismissed after just eight months had his unfair dismissal claim struck out for lack of qualifying service. His race discrimination claims were allowed to proceed but subject to a £100 deposit order.
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.
Unfair dismissal claim struck out: the two-year service rule in action
A former employee of the University of Bradford had his unfair dismissal claim struck out because he had less than two years' service. His harassment and disability discrimination claims were also struck out for procedural failures.
Project engineer with under two years' service has unfair dismissal and discrimination claims struck out
A tribunal struck out a project engineer's unfair dismissal, sexual orientation discrimination, and wrongful dismissal claims after he was sacked for sending a confidential email to colleagues. His sex discrimination claim survived but required a £200 deposit.