Whistleblower dismissed after conflict with legal head: procedural unfairness leads to £87k award
An employment tribunal found that Gulf International Bank (UK) Limited unfairly dismissed its Head of Financial Audit after a conflict with the Head of Legal, awarding £87,693.83 including a 25% ACAS uplift.
1 min read · Last updated 19 May 2026
Case details
- #protected-disclosures
- #conduct-dismissal
- #acas-code-uplift
- #procedural-unfairness
- #whistleblowing-detriment-out-of-time
Key facts
- The claimant was employed from 15 February 2010 until summary dismissal on 3 December 2018.
- She was promoted to Head of Financial Audit in March 2016 and consistently received outstanding performance appraisals.
- The claimant made ten protected disclosures about the GTOP fund, which the respondent accepted as qualifying disclosures.
- The dismissal was triggered by a conflict with the Head of Legal on 22 October 2018, where the claimant questioned her legal awareness.
- The respondent admitted the dismissal was procedurally unfair and failed to follow the ACAS Code of Practice.
- The tribunal found the principal reason for dismissal was conduct, not the protected disclosures.
Timeline
-
Employment commenced
Claimant started working for the respondent as Senior Business Auditor.
-
Promotion to Head of Financial Audit
Claimant's job title changed to Head of Financial Audit, though not considered a promotion by HR.
-
First protected disclosure (PD1)
Claimant raised AML and sanctions concerns about the GTOP fund to the Group Chief Auditor and Head of Compliance.
-
José incident
Claimant approached departing employee José Canepa to ask about a damaged cashew nut shipment, which was deemed inappropriate.
-
Draft GTOP audit report circulated (PD3)
Claimant sent draft audit report raising multiple concerns about the GTOP fund to management.
-
Conflict with Head of Legal
Claimant and Jenny Harding had a heated exchange about the audit report; Harding felt her professional integrity was questioned.
-
Meeting in Bahrain to decide dismissal
HR head and CEO met with Group Chief Auditor; decision made to dismiss the claimant.
-
Summary dismissal
Claimant was dismissed with immediate effect, paid in lieu of notice.
-
Claim presented to tribunal
Claimant filed her claim for unfair dismissal and detriment for protected disclosures.
-
Remedy judgment
Tribunal awarded £87,693.83 including a 25% uplift for failure to follow ACAS Code.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant's dismissal was automatically unfair because the principal reason was her protected disclosures (whistleblowing), or whether it was a conduct dismissal that could be fair if properly handled.
The outcome
The tribunal found that the principal reason for dismissal was the claimant's conduct (specifically, a conflict with the Head of Legal), not her protected disclosures. However, the bank admitted the dismissal was procedurally unfair, and the tribunal agreed.
Key reasons:
- The bank failed to follow any proper disciplinary procedure before deciding to dismiss.
- The decision to dismiss was made at a meeting in Bahrain without the claimant being present or given a chance to respond.
- The ACAS Code of Practice was not followed, leading to a 25% uplift on compensation.
Compensation breakdown:
- Basic award: £4,826.00
- Compensatory award: £82,867.83
- Total (including uplift): £87,693.83
Lessons & takeaways
- Even if an employer believes the reason for dismissal is conduct, a fair procedure must be followed—including giving the employee a chance to respond before any decision is made.
- Failing to follow the ACAS Code of Practice can increase compensation by up to 25%, so employers should ensure they follow proper disciplinary procedures.
- Protected disclosures (whistleblowing) can complicate a dismissal, but if the employer can show the principal reason was conduct, the dismissal may still be fair if handled correctly.
- Employees who make protected disclosures should document them carefully, as the timing and content can affect the strength of a subsequent claim.
A breakdown in working relationships
This case illustrates how a conflict between senior employees can escalate into a dismissal that is procedurally flawed. The claimant, a high-performing Head of Financial Audit with eight years' service, had a heated exchange with the Head of Legal over an audit report. The bank saw this as a breakdown in trust and decided to dismiss her—but did so without following any proper process.
The tribunal noted that the bank admitted the dismissal was procedurally unfair. The decision to dismiss was made at a meeting in Bahrain, without the claimant being present or given an opportunity to respond to the allegations against her. This is a classic example of a 'pre-determination' that makes a dismissal unfair, regardless of the underlying reason.
What the bank could have done differently
The bank could have avoided this outcome by following a fair disciplinary procedure. This would have included: informing the claimant of the allegations, giving her a chance to respond, considering her explanation, and allowing an appeal. Instead, the bank's failure to follow the ACAS Code led to a 25% uplift on the compensatory award, adding over £16,500 to the total.
Why this matters for similar claims
For employees, this case shows that even if a dismissal is for conduct, it can still be unfair if the procedure is flawed. For employers, it is a reminder that a fair process is not optional—it is a legal requirement. The tribunal also found that the claimant's protected disclosures (whistleblowing) were not the principal reason for dismissal, but the procedural failures meant the dismissal was still unfair. This highlights that whistleblowing claims can be complex, and the reason for dismissal will be closely scrutinised.
Similar cases
Dismissed without a disciplinary hearing: procedural unfairness costs employer £9,500
A former employee with two years' service was unfairly dismissed after being suspended and then sacked without any disciplinary hearing. The Cambridge tribunal awarded £9,546.81 in compensation.
Employer's failure to comply with tribunal orders leads to strike-out of response
A tribunal struck out Cavendish Learning Limited's response after repeated failures to comply with case management orders, leaving the claimant's unfair dismissal and discrimination claims undefended.
Depot manager dismissed over four-year-old theft allegation without a hearing
A depot manager with 18 years' service was unfairly dismissed after his employer relied on a stale theft allegation and denied him the chance to respond. The tribunal awarded £22,000.
Carer dismissed by email after back injury: no investigation, no hearing
A carer with nearly five years' service was dismissed by email after reporting a back injury at work. The tribunal found the dismissal procedurally unfair but limited compensation because a fair dismissal would have occurred anyway.