Whistleblowing redundancy dismissal: procedural failure in appeal made it unfair
A manager who developed a key financial model and made protected disclosures was dismissed for redundancy. The tribunal found the dismissal unfair because his appeal did not properly consider his whistleblowing concerns.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #whistleblowing
- #harm-metrics
- #redundancy
- #unfair-dismissal
- #appeal-procedure
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as a Manager in the Risk department from 2 October 2006 until 25 October 2018.
- The claimant developed the Harm metrics, a financial model to measure undercapitalisation of firms.
- The claimant made numerous protected disclosures about undercapitalisation and regulatory failures.
- The respondent restructured the Risk and Compliance Oversight Division, placing the claimant at risk of redundancy.
- The claimant refused the offered Technical Specialist role and did not apply for other roles.
- The claimant's appeal against dismissal was procedurally unfair because the appeal officer did not consider his main ground that he was dismissed for whistleblowing.
Timeline
-
Employment commenced
Claimant started work at the FSA as a Manager in the Risk department.
-
Harm metrics development
Claimant began developing the Harm metrics, a model to measure undercapitalisation of financial firms.
-
FCA established
The FSA was abolished and the FCA assumed some of its functions; claimant's employment transferred to the FCA.
-
Work on Harm metrics stopped
Claimant was instructed to stop work on the Harm metrics and stop circulating the daily newsletter.
-
At risk of redundancy
Claimant was told he was at risk of redundancy as part of a restructuring of the Risk and Compliance Oversight Division.
-
Dismissal
Claimant's employment was terminated by reason of redundancy after he refused the Technical Specialist role and did not apply for other roles.
-
Claim presented
Claimant presented a claim form to the Employment Tribunal.
-
Judgment on liability
Tribunal found the dismissal was unfair due to procedural failings in the appeal process.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the dismissal was automatically unfair due to whistleblowing, or fair by reason of redundancy, and whether the procedure (especially the appeal) was fair.
The outcome
The tribunal found that the claimant was dismissed for redundancy (or restructuring), not automatically unfairly for whistleblowing. However, the dismissal was procedurally unfair because the appeal officer did not consider the claimant's main argument that he was dismissed for making protected disclosures.
Compensation will be determined at a remedy hearing, with a potential 100% Polkey reduction (meaning the claimant might have been dismissed anyway if a fair procedure had been followed).
Lessons & takeaways
- If you are dismissed and your appeal fails to address your key arguments, especially whistleblowing, the dismissal may be procedurally unfair.
- Employers must ensure appeal officers properly consider all grounds raised by the employee, not just the formal redundancy process.
- A Polkey reduction can significantly reduce compensation if the tribunal thinks a fair process would still have led to dismissal.
- Whistleblowing claims are hard to win if the employer shows a genuine redundancy situation and the dismissal was not motivated by the disclosures.
What this case shows in practice
A long-serving manager in the Risk department of the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) developed a financial model called 'Harm metrics' to measure undercapitalisation of firms. He made numerous protected disclosures about regulatory failures. When the FCA restructured, he was placed at risk of redundancy, refused an alternative role, and was dismissed.
The tribunal found that the dismissal was genuinely by reason of redundancy, not because of his whistleblowing. However, the appeal process was flawed: the appeal officer did not consider the claimant's main argument that he was dismissed for whistleblowing. This procedural failure made the dismissal unfair.
What the losing side could have done differently
The FCA could have ensured that the appeal officer addressed all the grounds raised by the claimant, including his whistleblowing concerns. A proper consideration of those grounds might have led to a different outcome or at least a fair process. The tribunal noted that the appeal was 'procedurally unfair' because the officer failed to engage with the central issue.
Why the result matters for similar claims
This case shows that even if a redundancy dismissal is substantively fair, procedural errors in the appeal can render it unfair. Employees who believe they were dismissed for whistleblowing should ensure their appeal explicitly raises that point. Employers must train appeal officers to consider all arguments, not just the formal redundancy criteria.
The tribunal also indicated a 100% Polkey reduction, meaning the claimant would likely have been dismissed anyway if a fair procedure had been followed. This limits compensation but does not erase the finding of unfairness.
Similar cases
Senior engineer made redundant after pandemic downturn: unfair dismissal due to opaque selection process
An employment tribunal found that Bechtel Ltd unfairly dismissed a senior electrical engineer during a redundancy process, ruling that the selection lacked transparency. The claimant's race, caste, and whistleblowing claims were dismissed.
Sports club managers dismissed without consultation: redundancy ruled unfair
Two joint managers of a sports club were unfairly dismissed when they were made redundant without any consultation, despite the club's dire financial situation. The tribunal also found they were owed unpaid wages and holiday pay.
Whistleblowing claim: repeated amendment applications not unreasonable enough for costs
A former chartered accountant who made multiple applications to amend her whistleblowing and sex discrimination claims avoided a costs order, even though most amendments were refused. The tribunal said her conduct was not unreasonable or vexatious.
Redundancy claim struck out for non-disclosure: costs of £6,853 awarded
A senior manager's unfair dismissal claim was struck out after he failed to disclose documents about his new job. The tribunal ordered him to pay £6,853 in costs for unreasonable conduct.