Board-level health and safety director's whistleblowing claim survives strike-out attempt
A tribunal has refused to strike out a whistleblowing claim brought by a board-level health and safety director who alleged he was suspended and denied a bonus after raising concerns about storm risks.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
Key facts
- The claimant made oral disclosures about storm risks to health and safety on 1 March 2018 and 17 February 2022.
- The respondent applied to strike out the whistleblowing complaints for no reasonable prospect of success.
- The claimant was responsible at board level for health and safety and instructed the closure of the DC2 depot.
- The tribunal found triable issues of fact requiring oral evidence and refused the strike-out application.
Timeline
-
First oral disclosure
The claimant orally disclosed to his line manager Mr Toal and Director Lisa Wilkinson that violent storms were a risk to health and safety.
-
Second oral disclosure and depot closure
The claimant orally disclosed the same information about a different storm to Managing Director Alison Hand and CEO Jerome Saint-Marc, and instructed the closure of the DC2 depot.
-
Personnel file sent to HR
The claimant's personnel file was sent to the Head of Human Resources.
-
Bonus withheld
An instruction was given not to pay the claimant his agreed bonus.
-
Claimant suspended
The claimant was suspended from work.
-
Preliminary hearing
The tribunal heard the respondent's strike-out application and the claimant's disclosure application via Cloud Video Platform.
-
Judgment issued
Employment Judge Heap refused the strike-out application and issued case management orders.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant's complaints of automatically unfair dismissal and detriment for making protected disclosures had no reasonable prospect of success, meaning they were bound to fail.
The outcome
The tribunal refused the respondent's application to strike out the whistleblowing complaints. The judge held that there were genuine disputes of fact – for example, whether the claimant gave the instruction to close a depot and whether the timing of events after his disclosure showed a causal link – that could only be resolved after hearing oral evidence.
No compensation was awarded as this was a preliminary hearing on the strike-out application only.
Lessons & takeaways
- Oral disclosures can qualify as protected disclosures, but you must be able to prove what was said, to whom, and when.
- A strike-out application is a high bar – the claim must be bound to fail, not just unlikely to succeed.
- Timing of events after a disclosure (e.g., suspension, withheld bonus) can support an inference of causation.
- Board-level employees making disclosures about their own area of responsibility can still bring whistleblowing claims.
When a board-level director blows the whistle
This case shows that even senior employees with direct responsibility for health and safety can bring whistleblowing claims if they raise concerns outside their normal duties. The claimant, a board-level Health and Safety Director, said he made oral disclosures about storm risks to senior management in 2018 and 2022. After the second disclosure, his personnel file was sent to HR, his bonus was withheld, and he was suspended.
Why the strike-out failed
Wilko argued the claim had no reasonable prospect of success, pointing to disputes about who closed a depot and the lack of written evidence of the disclosures. But the tribunal noted that oral disclosures are common and that the claimant's account of events – including the rapid sequence of actions after his disclosure – raised factual issues that needed to be tested in evidence. The judge emphasised that striking out is a 'last resort' and should only happen if the claim is bound to fail.
What this means for similar claims
For anyone considering a whistleblowing claim, this decision highlights the importance of documenting disclosures where possible, even if they are made orally. It also shows that employers cannot easily dispose of whistleblowing claims at an early stage if there is any real dispute about what happened. The case will now proceed to a full hearing where the evidence will be examined in detail.
Similar cases
Whistleblowing claim struck out after claimant fails to attend hearings
A former employee's unfair dismissal and whistleblowing claims were dismissed after she failed to attend two hearings, including a telephone hearing where neither party showed up.
Former employee's claims dismissed after failing to attend final hearing
An employment tribunal dismissed all remaining claims of a former employee who did not attend the final hearing and failed to comply with court orders, ending a case that had already lost several claims due to non-compliance.
Site Manager with 8 months' service loses unfair dismissal claim
A site manager who was dismissed after just eight months had his unfair dismissal claim struck out for lack of qualifying service. His race discrimination claims were allowed to proceed but subject to a £100 deposit order.
Furniture installer dismissed after raising phone mount safety concern: interim relief revoked
A furniture installer who was dismissed shortly after asking for a phone mount and charger to navigate safely lost his unfair dismissal claim when the tribunal revoked an earlier interim relief order and later dismissed the case.