Driving examiner dismissed for photographing personal data: tribunal rejects discrimination and whistleblowing claims
A driving examiner with 14 years' service was dismissed for taking photos of a colleague's personal data. The tribunal found the dismissal fair and rejected all claims of discrimination and whistleblowing detriment.
1 min read · Last updated 19 May 2026
Case details
- #disability-discrimination
- #race-discrimination
- #public-interest-disclosure
- #victimisation
- #unauthorised-disclosure
- #bullying-allegations
- #sat-nav-safety
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as a driving examiner from 2 March 2003 until her summary dismissal on 8 November 2017.
- She was diagnosed with Adult Onset Still's Disease in 2009, a lifelong auto-inflammatory condition.
- The claimant applied for a Local Driving Test Manager post in August 2017 but was unsuccessful; Jan Vear-Altog was appointed instead.
- She raised concerns about a colleague's short testing in January 2017 and about sat-nav route safety in December 2017.
- In February 2018, the claimant reported that her manager had left personal data visible on a desk; she took photographs of the notebook.
- The respondent investigated and dismissed the claimant for unauthorised copying of data and breach of trust.
- The tribunal found no discrimination, victimisation, or unfair dismissal; all claims were dismissed.
Timeline
-
Employment started
Claimant began work as a driving test examiner for the respondent.
-
Diagnosis of Adult Onset Still's Disease
Claimant was diagnosed with a rare auto-inflammatory disease causing joint pain, fevers, and rash.
-
First employment tribunal claim
Claimant lodged a disability discrimination claim against the respondent, which was settled and withdrawn in 2011.
-
Reported short testing
Claimant emailed management alleging colleague Sid Loizou conducted a shortened extended driving test.
-
Unsuccessful LDTM application
Claimant applied for Local Driving Test Manager post but was not appointed; Jan Vear-Altog was selected.
-
Return-to-work meeting
Claimant attended a long meeting with manager Nicola Morgan to discuss her health and attendance.
-
Written improvement warning
Claimant received a first written improvement warning for exceeding attendance triggers.
-
Sat-nav safety email
Claimant emailed Jan Vear-Altog complaining about a dangerous sat-nav route and criticising her management.
-
Reported data breach
Claimant contacted HR about personal data left visible on a desk; later showed photos to manager Chas Perkins.
-
Suspension
Claimant was suspended on grounds of unauthorised disclosure of information and breakdown of trust.
-
Dismissal
Claimant was summarily dismissed for breach of data policy and conduct destroying trust and confidence.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant was unfairly dismissed, subjected to race or disability discrimination, victimisation, or detriment for whistleblowing, and whether any claims were brought in time.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed all claims. It found that the driving examiner was fairly dismissed for gross misconduct after she photographed a notebook containing personal data left on a manager's desk. The tribunal concluded that the respondent's belief in her guilt was genuine and reasonable, and that dismissal was a proportionate sanction.
- All claims of unfair dismissal, discrimination, victimisation, and whistleblowing detriment were rejected.
- No compensation was awarded as the dismissal was fair.
Lessons & takeaways
- Unauthorised copying of personal data, even if well-intentioned, can amount to gross misconduct justifying dismissal.
- Raising concerns about data breaches does not automatically protect an employee from disciplinary action if they themselves breach data policies.
- Tribunals will scrutinise whether the employer genuinely believed in the misconduct and followed a fair process, not whether the employee intended harm.
- Previous tribunal claims and grievances may be relevant context but do not prevent a fair dismissal for separate misconduct.
A case about boundaries and data
This case shows how a well-meaning employee can cross a line when trying to expose wrongdoing. The driving examiner, who had worked for the Driving & Vehicle Standards Agency for 14 years, took photographs of a notebook containing colleagues' personal data after it was left visible on a manager's desk. She reported the data breach to HR, but also kept the photos. When her managers discovered she had copied the data, they suspended and then dismissed her for gross misconduct.
The tribunal heard that the examiner had a history of raising concerns about safety and data issues, and had previously brought a disability discrimination claim. She argued that her dismissal was a sham, motivated by discrimination and victimisation. However, the tribunal accepted that the respondent genuinely believed she had committed a serious breach of trust by copying the data without authorisation. The decision to dismiss was within the range of reasonable responses, and the process was fair.
What the employer did right
The respondent carried out a thorough investigation, gave the claimant a fair opportunity to respond, and considered her explanations. The tribunal noted that the claimant had not been authorised to copy the data, and that the respondent's data policy clearly prohibited such conduct. The employer's belief in her guilt was reasonable, even if the claimant thought she was acting in the public interest.
Why this matters
This case is a reminder that employees who blow the whistle or raise grievances still have to follow workplace rules. Taking matters into your own hands — even to expose a data breach — can backfire if it involves unauthorised copying of personal data. For employers, it confirms that a genuine belief in misconduct, based on a reasonable investigation, is enough to defend a dismissal, provided the process is fair.
Similar cases
Constructive dismissal after whistleblowing and disability harassment: a partial win for former employee
A former employee who resigned after being required to attend a disciplinary investigation meeting following protected disclosures has won claims for detriment, disability discrimination, harassment and victimisation, but her constructive unfair dismissal claim was dismissed. She was awarded £12,822.78.
Security guard dismissed for sleeping on duty: tribunal rejects discrimination claims
A security guard who was dismissed after being found asleep during his shift at Bloomberg LLP has lost his claims for unfair dismissal and discrimination. The tribunal found the employer acted reasonably and the discrimination claims had no merit.
Whistleblowing dismissal: team leader with 13 years' service wins unfair dismissal claim
A team leader dismissed for failing to complete accident reports was unfairly dismissed because the real reason was his whistleblowing. Tribunal awards £40,670 after 30% reduction for his conduct.
Field assessor with hypertension wins victimisation claim after raising COVID safety concerns
A field assessor with 10 years' service who raised concerns about returning to work during the pandemic has won a victimisation claim against Vibrant Energy Matters Ltd. The tribunal found the company failed to properly handle her second grievance.