Letter of concern about colleague's dismissal not a protected disclosure
A locum clinical neuropsychologist's claim for unfair dismissal after sending a 'Letter of Concern' about a former colleague's dismissal has been struck out. The tribunal found the letter was not a qualifying protected disclosure.
1 min read · Last updated 19 May 2026
Case details
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as a Locum Clinical Neuropsychologist under a fixed-term contract from 21 April 2020 to 14 June 2021.
- On 19 February 2021, the claimant sent a 'Letter of Concern' to the CEO regarding the dismissal of a former colleague, Dr Brian O'Neill.
- The claimant alleged that the letter was a protected disclosure under the Employment Rights Act 1996.
- The respondent denied that the letter constituted a qualifying disclosure.
- The tribunal found that the letter did not amount to a qualifying disclosure and struck out the claims.
Timeline
-
Employment start
Claimant began employment as a Locum Clinical Neuropsychologist under a fixed-term contract.
-
Initial contract end
The fixed-term contract was initially due to end, but was later extended.
-
Learned of Dr O'Neill's failed appeal
The claimant became aware that Dr Brian O'Neill's appeal against dismissal had failed.
-
Letter of Concern sent
The claimant sent a 'Letter of Concern' to the CEO, with nine co-signatories, expressing concerns about Dr O'Neill's dismissal.
-
ACAS early conciliation started
ACAS early conciliation began.
-
ACAS early conciliation ended
ACAS early conciliation concluded.
-
Contract ended
The claimant's fixed-term contract ended, which he claims was a dismissal.
-
Claim presented
The claimant presented his claim to the Employment Tribunal.
-
Preliminary hearing
Employment Judge Ord set a public preliminary hearing to determine whether the letter was a qualifying disclosure.
-
Substantive hearing
Employment Judge Conley heard the preliminary issue.
-
Judgment issued
The tribunal struck out the claims, finding the letter was not a qualifying disclosure.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether a letter sent by the claimant to the CEO, expressing concerns about the dismissal of a former colleague, qualified as a protected disclosure under whistleblowing law.
The outcome
The tribunal struck out all claims, finding that the letter was not a qualifying disclosure. The claimant had argued that the letter disclosed information tending to show a miscarriage of justice or failure to comply with legal obligations, but the tribunal disagreed. As a result, the claims had no reasonable prospect of success.
Lessons & takeaways
- Not every expression of concern about a colleague's treatment will qualify as a protected disclosure — the information must tend to show a specific legal failure.
- A letter that primarily supports a colleague rather than disclosing information about wrongdoing is unlikely to be protected.
- Tribunals will strike out claims early if the alleged disclosure does not meet the legal definition, saving time and costs.
- If you believe you have made a protected disclosure, ensure the information you disclose clearly relates to one of the prescribed categories in the Employment Rights Act.
What this case shows
This case illustrates the high bar for whistleblowing protection. The claimant, a locum clinical neuropsychologist, sent a 'Letter of Concern' to the CEO about the dismissal of a former colleague. He believed this was a protected disclosure. However, the tribunal found that the letter did not disclose information tending to show a relevant failure — it was more an expression of support for the colleague.
What could have been done differently
The claimant might have framed his concerns more explicitly around specific legal failures, such as a breach of contract or procedural unfairness. A letter that clearly identifies a legal obligation and how it was breached is more likely to qualify.
Why this matters
This decision reinforces that whistleblowing claims require more than a general expression of concern. Employees should be aware that the content of the disclosure must meet the statutory definition. For employers, it confirms that not every complaint about a colleague's treatment will trigger whistleblowing protections.
Similar cases
Interim relief denied: whistleblower claim fails for fixed-term civil servant
A senior civil servant who claimed his fixed-term contract was not renewed because of whistleblowing disclosures has lost his bid for interim relief. The tribunal found no 'pretty good chance' he would win at a final hearing.
Lead Software Consultant's whistleblowing claims dismissed as out of time
An employment tribunal struck out a Lead Software Consultant's whistleblowing detriment and automatically unfair dismissal claims, leaving only an ordinary unfair dismissal claim to proceed. The tribunal also refused the employer's bid to strike out the remaining claim due to the claimant's conduct.
Threatening emails and abuse of witnesses: claim struck out as vexatious
A former employee who sent threatening emails to colleagues and called a witness a liar outside the tribunal room had his unfair dismissal claim struck out. The tribunal said a fair trial was no longer possible.
Strike-out of disability discrimination claim against CEO: no specific allegations
A former employee's disability discrimination claim against the CEO of CSH Surrey was struck out after she failed to particularise any specific allegations against him. The tribunal found the claim had no reasonable prospects of success.