Whistleblowing detriment claim by solicitor over client overbilling fails
A solicitor who alleged his firm was overbilling a client lost his whistleblowing detriment claim. The tribunal found the firm's reasons for ending his contract were genuine and unrelated to his disclosures.
2 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #protected-disclosure
- #detriment
- #solicitor
- #consultancy-agreement
- #overbilling-allegation
- #sra-complaint
- #bsb-complaint
Key facts
- The claimant was a solicitor engaged under a consultancy agreement with the respondent firm.
- The claimant made disclosures on 29 February and 4 March 2016 alleging overbilling of client A and unlawful detriment.
- The Employment Appeal Tribunal remitted the case after finding the disclosures were protected.
- The tribunal found the claimant was not subjected to detriment because of the protected disclosures.
- The respondent's reasons for termination included fee disputes, the parents' case, and competence concerns.
- The claimant's claim for unlawful deductions from wages succeeded in part and was awarded £13,741.
Timeline
-
Consultancy agreement signed
The claimant and respondent signed a consultancy agreement for the claimant to work as a solicitor, with remuneration based on a percentage of fees billed and paid.
-
Claim form struck out
A claim form for client A was struck out due to defects, leading to increased supervision of the claimant and notification to insurers.
-
Parents' building dispute settled
The claimant's parents' case settled at a joint settlement meeting for £110,000, with the respondent attending to confirm the indemnity principle.
-
Meeting about client A fees
The claimant alleged an oral agreement to double his monthly fee for client A to £10,000; the tribunal found no such agreement.
-
First protected disclosure
The claimant emailed the respondent alleging overbilling of client A, which was later found to be a protected disclosure.
-
Third protected disclosure
The claimant emailed the respondent repeating the overbilling allegation and stating he had suffered unlawful detriment as a whistleblower.
-
Consultancy agreement terminated
The respondent terminated the consultancy agreement by email, citing the claimant's demands for increased fees, the parents' case dispute, and competence concerns.
-
SRA complaint made
The respondent reported the claimant to the Solicitors Regulation Authority regarding his conduct in the parents' case.
-
Claire Duncan's report
Claire Duncan sent a report to the claimant detailing alleged misconduct and setting out the respondent's position on outstanding payments.
-
Claim presented
The claimant presented his claim to the employment tribunal, including allegations of whistleblowing detriment and unlawful deductions from wages.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the solicitor suffered a detriment (termination of his consultancy agreement and subsequent treatment) because he made protected disclosures about alleged overbilling of a client and claimed he had suffered unlawful detriment as a whistleblower.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed the whistleblowing detriment claim. It found that the respondent's reasons for terminating the consultancy agreement were genuine and not influenced by the protected disclosures. The key reasons were the claimant's demands for increased fees, a dispute over the parents' building case, and concerns about his competence.
However, the claimant succeeded in part on his unlawful deductions from wages claim, which was awarded £13,741. The breakdown is not specified in the facts.
Lessons & takeaways
- A protected disclosure does not automatically protect you from dismissal if the employer has other genuine, non-retaliatory reasons for ending your contract.
- Keep clear records of any agreements about fees or payments, as oral agreements are difficult to prove without written evidence.
- If you make a protected disclosure, ensure it is in writing and clearly states the concern – but be aware that the employer may still have legitimate grounds to terminate your engagement.
- Whistleblowing claims require a direct link between the disclosure and the detriment; if the employer can show a different reason, the claim will fail.
What this case shows in practice
A solicitor working under a consultancy agreement alleged that his firm overbilled a client and then subjected him to detriment – including termination of his contract – because he raised the issue. The tribunal had already found that his disclosures were protected, meaning they qualified as whistleblowing. But that was only the first hurdle. The key question was whether the firm's actions were actually caused by those disclosures.
The tribunal concluded they were not. The firm had multiple other concerns: the solicitor had demanded a doubling of his monthly fee without agreement, there was a dispute over his parents' case where he had allegedly acted improperly, and there were competence issues following a struck-out claim form. The termination email cited these reasons, and the tribunal accepted them as genuine.
What the losing side could have done differently
For the solicitor, the case shows that even a valid protected disclosure is not a magic shield. To succeed in a detriment claim, you need evidence that the disclosure was a material factor in the employer's decision. Here, the firm had a paper trail of other grievances that predated or were independent of the whistleblowing. The solicitor might have strengthened his case by documenting any explicit or implicit threats linking the disclosure to the termination.
For employers, the case is a reminder that clear, contemporaneous records of performance and conduct issues are essential. The firm's ability to point to specific incidents – the fee dispute, the parents' case, the competence concerns – helped defeat the whistleblowing claim. However, the firm still lost on the unlawful deductions claim, highlighting the importance of proper fee agreements and payment records.
Why the result matters for similar claims
This decision underscores that whistleblowing protection is not absolute. Tribunals will scrutinise the employer's true motivation, and if there are other legitimate reasons for the treatment, the claim will fail. It also illustrates the complexity of consultancy arrangements, where employment rights may differ from those of employees. Anyone considering a whistleblowing claim should be prepared to show a direct causal link and should gather evidence of any retaliatory behaviour that is separate from other workplace issues.
Similar cases
Care home manager's whistleblowing claim fails as decision-maker unaware of disclosures
A care home manager who claimed he was automatically unfairly dismissed for raising concerns about resident safety lost his case. The tribunal found the decision-maker did not know about the disclosures and dismissed him for genuine belief in gross misconduct.
Live-in carer wins whistleblowing detriment claim but loses constructive dismissal case
A live-in carer with 32 years' experience won a whistleblowing detriment claim after raising safety concerns, but her constructive dismissal claim failed. She was awarded £1,775.
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 claims dismissed: pre-school practitioner's disclosures not protected
A pre-school practitioner who claimed she was dismissed for whistleblowing lost her case after the tribunal found her disclosures did not tend to show health or safety endangerment.