Senior director dismissed for whistleblowing after alleging director breaches
A senior director who made protected disclosures about a fellow director's breaches of duty was automatically unfairly dismissed. The tribunal awarded £121,601.88, including a 25% uplift for failing to follow the ACAS Code.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #protected-disclosure
- #public-interest
- #director-duties
- #acas-code-uplift
- #polkey-declined
- #dividend-excluded
Key facts
- The claimant made oral and written protected disclosures on 15 and 18 March 2022 alleging that a director breached fiduciary and statutory duties.
- The respondent had known about the claimant's pension payments since January 2021 but took no action until after the disclosures.
- The respondent suspended the claimant on 30 March 2022 and dismissed him on 9 June 2022.
- The tribunal found the principal reason for dismissal was the protected disclosures, not the pension payments.
- The respondent withdrew from the hearing after its adjournment application was refused.
- The tribunal awarded a 25% uplift for failure to follow the ACAS Code.
Timeline
-
Claimant enquires about pension payment
Claimant asked the respondent's accountant about tax impact of making £42,000 payments into his and his brother's pensions.
-
Claimant forwards accountant's response
Claimant forwarded the email exchange to directors Bibbey and Egan.
-
Board minutes amended
Claimant amended board minutes to include reference to pension contributions of £41,666.66.
-
Management buyout completed
MBO completed, claimant entitled to work full-time until 31 December 2025.
-
Oral protected disclosure
Claimant orally disclosed to Mr Egan that he was in breach of duties under the Shareholders Agreement and fiduciary/statutory duties.
-
Written protected disclosure
Claimant's solicitors sent a letter repeating the disclosure and referring to s.43B ERA.
-
Claimant suspended
Respondent suspended the claimant.
-
Disciplinary meeting
Disciplinary meeting held.
-
Dismissal
Claimant dismissed.
-
Claim presented
Claim presented to the tribunal.
-
Final hearing begins
Three-day hearing; respondent withdrew after adjournment refused.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the senior director was automatically unfairly dismissed because he made protected disclosures (whistleblowing) about a director's breach of fiduciary and statutory duties, and whether the dismissal was also unfair under s.94 Employment Rights Act 1996.
The outcome
The tribunal upheld the claim of automatic unfair dismissal (whistleblowing) and ordinary unfair dismissal.
Key reasons:
- The protected disclosures were made in March 2022, and the respondent took no action about the pension payments until after those disclosures.
- The tribunal found the real reason for dismissal was the disclosures, not the pension issue.
- The respondent withdrew from the hearing after its adjournment application was refused.
Compensation breakdown:
- Basic award: £5,386.50
- Compensatory award: £103,281.50
- ACAS Code uplift (25%): applied to compensatory award
- Total award: £121,601.88 (grossed up for tax)
Lessons & takeaways
- If you make a protected disclosure about a colleague's wrongdoing, your employer cannot dismiss you for it – that is automatically unfair.
- Employers should not rely on a pre-existing issue as a pretext for dismissing someone who has blown the whistle; tribunals will look at the timing and real reason.
- Failing to follow the ACAS Code of Practice on disciplinary and grievance procedures can result in a 25% uplift on compensation.
- Withdrawing from a hearing after an adjournment is refused can lead to the tribunal deciding the case based on the claimant's evidence alone.
What this case shows
This case demonstrates how tribunals scrutinise the real reason behind a dismissal when whistleblowing is alleged. The senior director had made oral and written disclosures about a director's breaches of fiduciary and statutory duties. The respondent tried to argue that the dismissal was due to the director's involvement in making pension payments without proper authorisation. However, the tribunal noted that the respondent had known about the pension payments for over a year and took no action until after the disclosures were made. This timing was critical.
What the respondent could have done differently
The respondent could have avoided this outcome by properly investigating the disclosures and separating them from any other issues. Instead, it suspended the director shortly after the disclosures and dismissed him within three months. The respondent also failed to follow the ACAS Code, leading to a 25% uplift on compensation. Its decision to withdraw from the hearing after an adjournment was refused meant the tribunal heard only the claimant's evidence.
Why this matters
This case is a reminder that whistleblowing protections are strong. Directors and senior employees who raise genuine concerns about wrongdoing are protected from dismissal, regardless of their seniority. Employers must ensure that any disciplinary action is not tainted by a desire to silence whistleblowers. The significant award here – over £121,000 – reflects the seriousness of the breach.
Similar cases
Chief Risk Officer dismissed after raising regulatory concerns: whistleblowing claim succeeds
A chief risk officer who repeatedly flagged breaches of his bank's risk management framework was automatically unfairly dismissed for making protected disclosures. The tribunal awarded £137,894 in compensation.
Area manager dismissed for editing timesheet: procedural failures led to unfair dismissal finding
An area manager was unfairly dismissed after editing a timesheet, but the tribunal found the investigation was flawed and the disciplinary process lacked proper notice. He was awarded £8,026 after reductions for contributory conduct and a Polkey finding.
Managing director dismissed by email: £25,000 for wrongful dismissal but protected disclosure claim fails
A managing director with a six-month notice period was dismissed by email after raising concerns about unpaid expenses and pension contributions. The tribunal awarded £25,000 for wrongful dismissal but rejected his protected disclosure claim.
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.