Whistleblowing detriment: removed from WhatsApp group for contacting HMRC
Two business development managers who raised concerns about PAYE and payslips were removed from the company WhatsApp group and blamed for contacting HMRC. The tribunal awarded over £15,000 each for injury to feelings, with a 20% ACAS uplift.
2 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
Key facts
- Both claimants started employment with Golden Egg Recruitment Group Limited on 3 February 2020.
- Their employment transferred to Golden Egg Group Limited via TUPE on 17 August 2020.
- The claimants made protected disclosures about data protection, lack of payslips, and failure to register for PAYE.
- They were removed from the company WhatsApp group and blamed in a message for contacting HMRC.
- They resigned on 7 September 2020 due to non-payment of full August wages.
- The tribunal found the non-payment was not a fundamental breach, so unfair dismissal claims failed.
Timeline
-
Employment started
Both claimants started work at Golden Egg Recruitment Group Limited.
-
First pay received
Claimants received their first monthly payment but no payslip.
-
Miss Lomas contacted HMRC
Miss Lomas called HMRC to check PAYE registration and was told she was still registered with previous employer.
-
Miss Scorgie emailed about PAYE
Miss Scorgie emailed Ms Grydzuk about her tax record still showing previous employer.
-
Teams call about payslips
Both claimants participated in a Teams call asking for payslips.
-
TUPE transfer announced
Employees told they would transfer to Golden Egg Group Limited due to insolvency of Recruitment.
-
Transfer effective
Claimants continued work under Golden Egg Group Limited.
-
August pay due but not paid
Full August wages were not paid; half paid on 3 September.
-
Resignation
Both claimants resigned with immediate effect citing breach of contract.
-
Detriments occurred
Claimants removed from WhatsApp group and blamed in message for contacting HMRC.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimants suffered detriment for making protected disclosures about data protection, lack of payslips, and failure to register for PAYE, and whether they were constructively dismissed.
The outcome
The tribunal upheld the whistleblowing detriment claims but dismissed the unfair and wrongful dismissal claims. The non-payment of full August wages was not a fundamental breach of contract.
Compensation for each claimant:
- £11,000 for injury to feelings
- Unauthorised deduction of wages (Miss Scorgie: £1,640.74; Miss Lomas: £2,273.23)
- Accrued holiday pay (Miss Scorgie: £54.93; Miss Lomas: £275.94)
- 20% uplift for unreasonable failure to follow ACAS Code
- Total: Miss Scorgie £15,234.80; Miss Lomas £16,259.00
Lessons & takeaways
- Making a protected disclosure about tax or data issues can trigger whistleblowing protection, even if the employer later disputes the facts.
- Removing an employee from a group chat and publicly blaming them for contacting a regulator is likely to be seen as a detriment by a tribunal.
- Employers who fail to engage with tribunal proceedings risk having their response struck out and facing increased awards for non-compliance with the ACAS Code.
- Constructive dismissal claims require a fundamental breach of contract – non-payment of wages alone may not be enough if the employer pays most of the amount shortly after.
What this case shows in practice
Two business development managers started working for a recruitment company in February 2020. From early on, they raised concerns that the company was not providing payslips, had not registered them for PAYE, and might be mishandling data. After a TUPE transfer to a new entity, their August wages were only half paid on time. When they contacted HMRC to check their tax status, they were removed from the company WhatsApp group and a message was sent blaming them for the contact. They resigned the same day.
The tribunal accepted that the concerns about PAYE registration and payslips were protected disclosures – matters of public interest about tax compliance. The WhatsApp removal and the blaming message were clear detriments. However, the tribunal found that the wage shortfall was not a fundamental breach of contract because the employer paid half the August wages a few days late and the rest shortly after. So the constructive dismissal claims failed.
What the losing side could have done differently
The respondent did not attend the hearing and had its response struck out for failing to comply with an unless order. That meant the tribunal accepted the claimants' evidence largely unchallenged. Had the employer engaged, it might have argued that the WhatsApp removal was a minor management action or that the disclosures were not in the public interest. But by staying away, it lost any chance to contest the facts.
The tribunal also applied a 20% uplift because the employer unreasonably failed to follow the ACAS Code of Practice on disciplinary and grievance procedures. The Code is not legally binding, but ignoring it can add a significant penalty.
Why the result matters for similar claims
This case shows that whistleblowing protection can apply even in short-service employment – the claimants had only about seven months' service. It also confirms that social media exclusion can be a detriment if it is linked to a protected disclosure. For anyone considering a similar claim, the key is to show that the employer's action was because of the disclosure, not for some other reason. Keeping evidence of messages, emails, and witness statements is vital.
Similar cases
Dismissed without a meeting or appeal: a conduct case with big reductions
A former employee of Fairview Grocers Limited was unfairly dismissed without any meeting or right of appeal, but his own conduct led to a 60% cut in compensation. He was awarded £3,752.89 in total.
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.
Age-related harassment and unpaid wages: former employee awarded £37,873
A former employee was awarded over £37,000 after colleagues repeatedly called him 'old man' and 'grandpa', and the company made unauthorised deductions from his wages and failed to pay holiday pay.
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.