Interim relief refused: redundancy decision made before protected disclosures

When a redundancy decision predates a whistleblowing complaint

This case illustrates a common hurdle for whistleblowing claims: timing. The claimant, a senior contracts attorney, was dismissed by Calabrio UK Limited ostensibly for redundancy. She argued that the real reason was her protected disclosures about potential sanctions violations. However, the tribunal found that the decision to dismiss had been made towards the end of June 2023, before the disclosures she made in August. That timing made it difficult to argue that the disclosures were the principal reason for her dismissal.

What the employer did right

Calabrio UK Limited was able to show through internal communications that the redundancy decision was already in motion before the August disclosures. The tribunal focused on the June emails, where the claimant raised concerns about a payment from a Russian client via a UAE bank. But those emails were part of a broader discussion about how to handle the transaction, and the company had sought external legal advice. The tribunal concluded that the claimant had not shown it was likely that her disclosures were the real reason for her dismissal.

What this means for similar claims

For employees considering a whistleblowing claim, this case is a reminder that interim relief is not easily obtained. The legal test requires a significantly higher than 50% chance of success at trial. If the employer can point to a pre-existing decision to dismiss, the claim is likely to fail at this stage. For employers, it shows the importance of documenting redundancy decisions clearly and ensuring they are not tainted by any protected disclosures. The case also highlights the complexities for in-house lawyers, whose communications may be subject to legal advice privilege, potentially limiting what counts as a qualifying disclosure.