Teacher awarded £2,500 after chair of governors' email suggested counter-proceedings
A teacher at a special needs school succeeded in a whistleblowing detriment claim after the chair of governors sent an email suggesting counter-proceedings against him, which was accidentally disclosed. The tribunal awarded £2,500 for injury to feelings.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #whistleblowing
- #injury-to-feelings
- #protected-disclosure
- #detriment
- #chair-of-governors-email
Key facts
- The claimant was a teacher at Brantridge School, a special needs school operated by the respondent.
- The claimant made a protected disclosure in a letter dated 3 April 2017 to Heath Mason, copied to Mr Cole.
- Mr Cole, Chair of the Governing Body, responded by email on 6 April 2017 suggesting counter-proceedings against the claimant.
- The respondent accidentally disclosed Mr Cole's email to the claimant, causing him distress.
- The tribunal found that the claimant suffered a detriment because of his protected disclosure.
- All other claims, including constructive unfair dismissal and disability discrimination, were dismissed.
Timeline
-
Employment commenced
The claimant started working at Brantridge School, then part of Radius Trust.
-
First concerns raised
The claimant wrote to CEO Trystan Williams raising concerns about poor practice at the school.
-
Formal grievance submitted
The claimant submitted a formal grievance about safety concerns and failure to make reasonable adjustments.
-
First assault incident
A student attacked the claimant with a pole, hitting him in the face.
-
Sick leave began
The claimant started sick leave and did not return to work before resigning.
-
Protected disclosure letter
The claimant wrote to Heath Mason, copying Mr Cole, complaining about the respondent's failure to address his grievance.
-
Mr Cole's email
Mr Cole emailed Ms Hammond-Smith suggesting counter-proceedings against the claimant; this email was later disclosed to the claimant.
-
Disclosure to external agencies
The claimant wrote to Ofsted, DfE, and HSE raising health and safety concerns.
-
Resignation
The claimant resigned, the same day his sick pay entitlement expired.
-
Liability judgment
The tribunal found that the claimant succeeded on one whistleblowing detriment claim.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the teacher was subjected to a detriment because he made a protected disclosure, and if so, what remedy should be awarded.
The outcome
The tribunal upheld one whistleblowing detriment claim, finding that the chair of governors' email suggesting counter-proceedings was a direct response to the teacher's protected disclosure. The accidental disclosure of that email to the teacher caused him distress.
All other claims – including constructive unfair dismissal, automatic unfair dismissal, failure to make reasonable adjustments, and indirect discrimination – were dismissed.
Compensation:
- Injury to feelings: £2,500
Lessons & takeaways
- Whistleblowing protection covers not just dismissal but also any detriment suffered because of a protected disclosure.
- An email suggesting retaliation, even if not acted upon, can amount to a detriment if it causes distress.
- Accidentally disclosing such an email to the whistleblower can compound the detriment and increase compensation.
- Representing yourself is possible but challenging – the teacher appeared in person while the respondent had legal counsel.
A single email that backfired
This case shows how a poorly considered response to a whistleblower can itself become a legal problem. The teacher, who had worked at a special needs school for over two and a half years, raised concerns about safety and the school's failure to address his grievance. In response, the chair of governors sent an internal email suggesting counter-proceedings against the teacher – and that email was accidentally disclosed to him.
The tribunal found that the email was a detriment because of the protected disclosure. The teacher had already been on sick leave and was distressed by the suggestion that he might face proceedings for raising concerns. The accidental disclosure added to that distress.
What the school could have done differently
The school could have avoided this outcome by handling the teacher's concerns more carefully. Instead of discussing counter-proceedings, the chair of governors should have acknowledged the disclosure and ensured it was properly investigated. A neutral, professional response would not have given rise to a detriment claim.
Why this matters for similar claims
This case is a reminder that whistleblowing protection extends beyond dismissal. Any unfavourable treatment – including internal emails that suggest retaliation – can be a detriment. For employees, it shows that even a single document can form the basis of a successful claim. For employers, it highlights the importance of training managers and governors on how to respond to whistleblowers.
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 constructive dismissal claim fails: tribunal finds no evidence of detriment
A former employee who resigned and claimed constructive dismissal for whistleblowing and health and safety reasons has lost her case after the tribunal found no evidence of detriment or dismissal for those reasons.
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.
MP dismissed senior advisor who raised concerns about misuse of parliamentary stationery
A senior advisor with 17 years' service was unfairly dismissed by her MP boss after making protected disclosures about misuse of parliamentary stationery and alleged criminal activity. The tribunal awarded £11,729.99 in compensation, reduced by 75% for contributory fault and a Polkey deduction.