Whistleblowing finance director awarded £125,000 after dismissal for raising health concerns
A part-time finance director who raised concerns about a colleague's mental health and corporate governance was automatically unfairly dismissed and subjected to age discrimination. The tribunal awarded her £125,604.98.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
Key facts
- The claimant was a founding director and Finance Director of the respondent, a tech start-up.
- She made protected disclosures about health and safety concerns regarding a colleague, Edward Ross.
- The respondent removed her as a Companies House director on 17 July 2020 without due process.
- She was placed on garden leave on 20 July 2020 and subjected to a flawed disciplinary process.
- The respondent dismissed her on 25 September 2020, citing investor pressure and breach of confidentiality.
- The tribunal found the principal reason for dismissal was her protected disclosures, and age discrimination also played a part.
Timeline
-
Board presentation on corporate governance
Claimant presented a paper on corporate governance and Wates Principles; not discussed due to time.
-
Board meeting – mental health concerns
Claimant raised need to monitor stress and mental health of team members.
-
Email about budget forecasts
Claimant expressed concern that investor committee might view forecasts as unrealistic.
-
Emails about Edward Ross's health
Claimant disclosed that Edward Ross was unwell due to pressure and risk of discrimination claim.
-
Position paper on Edward Ross
Claimant sent detailed document about Ross's health and the company's failure to grant holiday.
-
Removal as director
Claimant was removed as a Companies House director without proper process.
-
Placed on garden leave
Claimant was told she was removed as director and placed on garden leave.
-
Email about unlawful removal
Claimant emailed CEO stating her director removal was unlawful and linked to her disclosures.
-
Grievance and EGM request
Claimant submitted formal grievance and requested an EGM to remove CEO.
-
Dismissal
Claimant was dismissed by chairman Neil Ashworth, citing investor pressure and breach of confidentiality.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant was automatically unfairly dismissed for making protected disclosures about health and safety and corporate governance, and whether she was also subjected to age discrimination.
The outcome
The tribunal ruled that the claimant was automatically unfairly dismissed under section 103A of the Employment Rights Act 1996 because the principal reason for her dismissal was her protected disclosures. It also found that age discrimination was a factor. The respondent's disciplinary process was flawed, and the claimant was removed as a director without due process.
Compensation:
- Basic award: £2,412.00
- Total award: £125,604.98 (including compensatory award, subject to a 30% Polkey reduction for the chance she would have been dismissed fairly in any event)
- No deduction for contributory fault
Lessons & takeaways
- Protected disclosures about health and safety or legal obligations can give strong protection against dismissal, even if the employer claims other reasons.
- Removing a director without following proper process can be evidence of detrimental treatment linked to whistleblowing.
- Age discrimination claims can succeed alongside whistleblowing claims if the employer's actions suggest age was a factor.
- Employers should ensure disciplinary processes are fair and allow the employee to respond to allegations before dismissal.
This case shows how a director who raised legitimate concerns about a colleague's wellbeing and corporate governance can be protected by whistleblowing law. The claimant, a part-time finance director and founder of a tech start-up, repeatedly flagged that a colleague was under severe pressure and at risk of a breakdown. She also highlighted unrealistic forecasts and governance failings. Instead of addressing her concerns, the company removed her as a director, placed her on garden leave, and subjected her to a flawed disciplinary process before dismissing her.
What the employer did wrong
The tribunal found that the company's actions were directly linked to her disclosures. The chairman admitted that investor pressure and her breach of confidentiality were reasons for dismissal, but the tribunal concluded the real reason was her whistleblowing. The company also failed to follow proper procedures when removing her as a director and did not give her a fair chance to respond to allegations. Age discrimination was also found, as the claimant was older than other directors and was treated less favourably.
Why this matters
This case reinforces that whistleblowers are protected from the moment they make a qualifying disclosure, and that employers cannot use other reasons as a smokescreen. It also highlights that directors and employees alike are entitled to a fair process, even in a start-up environment. The 30% Polkey reduction reflects the possibility that the claimant might have been dismissed fairly anyway, but the core finding that the dismissal was automatically unfair sends a clear message: retaliation against whistleblowers will not be tolerated.
Similar cases
Dismissed for fuel card misuse: a flawed process that still fell short of unfair dismissal
A former personal assistant was dismissed for gross misconduct over fuel card use, but the tribunal found the process unfair. However, due to a break in service she lacked two years' continuous employment, so her unfair dismissal claim failed.
Long-serving employee loses age discrimination and unfair dismissal claims
A tribunal dismissed all claims brought by an assistive technology support worker with 21 years' service against Thirteen Housing Group Ltd, including allegations of direct age discrimination and unfair dismissal.
Whistleblower dismissal: former employee awarded £59,649 after making protected disclosures
A former employee of Fine Futures Limited has been awarded £59,649 after an employment tribunal found he was dismissed and subjected to detriment for making protected disclosures.
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.