Whistleblowing claims dismissed: pre-school practitioner's disclosures not protected
A pre-school practitioner who claimed she was dismissed for whistleblowing lost her case after the tribunal found her disclosures did not tend to show health or safety endangerment.
1 min read · Last updated 19 May 2026
Case details
- #protected-disclosure
- #detriment
- #unfair-dismissal
- #prescribed-person
- #ofsted
- #solicitors-letter
- #grievance
Key facts
- The claimant started work as a practitioner at the pre-school in September 2021.
- She made four alleged disclosures between November 2021 and January 2022.
- The tribunal found none of the disclosures were protected because they did not tend to show health or safety endangerment.
- The claimant was dismissed in April 2022 due to staff morale and her absence.
- The tribunal found the dismissal was not because of any protected disclosure.
- The claimant's claims of detriment were also dismissed.
Timeline
-
Employment started
Claimant began working as a practitioner at St Mark’s Pre-School.
-
First alleged disclosure
Claimant emailed Meri Sutton about a child being disorientated after a toy was removed.
-
Second alleged disclosure
Claimant highlighted that a child had a soiled nappy.
-
Third alleged disclosure
Claimant emailed about inappropriate staff behaviour and missed learning opportunities.
-
Fourth alleged disclosure to Ofsted
Claimant emailed Ofsted alleging bullying and inappropriate behaviour, and accusing the manager of dishonesty.
-
Solicitor's letter sent
Respondent's solicitor sent a letter to claimant demanding retraction of the dishonesty allegation.
-
First grievance meeting
Meeting to discuss claimant's grievance; later upheld in part.
-
Second grievance meeting
Meeting regarding claimant's second grievance; outcome did not uphold bullying claim.
-
Dismissal
Claimant was dismissed due to staff morale issues and her continued absence.
-
Claim presented
Claimant presented her claim to the employment tribunal.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant made protected disclosures about health and safety concerns, and if so, whether she was subjected to detriment or dismissed because of them.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed all of the claimant's claims.
- The tribunal found that none of the four alleged disclosures were protected under whistleblowing law because they did not tend to show that the health or safety of any individual had been, was being, or was likely to be endangered.
- The dismissal was for reasons related to staff morale and the claimant's absence, not because of any protected disclosure.
- The claims of detriment (including a solicitor's letter, grievance handling, and not allowing an appeal) were also dismissed.
No compensation was awarded as the claims failed.
Lessons & takeaways
- To be protected, a whistleblowing disclosure must tend to show a specific failure, such as a risk to health and safety – general complaints about behaviour or missed opportunities may not qualify.
- Making a disclosure to a prescribed body like Ofsted can be protected, but the content must still meet the legal test of being in the public interest and showing a relevant failure.
- Employers can dismiss for genuine operational reasons, such as staff morale and absence, as long as the reason is not the protected disclosure itself.
- Representing yourself at tribunal is possible but challenging – the respondent had legal counsel, which may have impacted the outcome.
What this case shows in practice
This case illustrates the high bar for whistleblowing claims. The claimant, a pre-school practitioner, raised several concerns about children's welfare and staff behaviour, including a disclosure to Ofsted. However, the tribunal found that none of her disclosures were 'protected' because they did not tend to show that health or safety was endangered. For example, reporting that a child was disorientated after a toy was removed, or that a child had a soiled nappy, was not enough to meet the legal threshold.
What the respondent did right
St Mark's Pre-School handled the situation by following its grievance process and ultimately dismissing the claimant due to staff morale and her absence. The tribunal accepted that the dismissal was not linked to any protected disclosure. The respondent also successfully argued that a solicitor's letter sent to the claimant was not a detriment caused by whistleblowing, but a response to an allegation of dishonesty.
Why this matters for similar claims
For employees considering a whistleblowing claim, this case is a reminder that the content of the disclosure is critical. It must clearly tend to show a specific failure, such as a risk to health and safety, a criminal offence, or a breach of legal obligation. Vague concerns about behaviour or missed opportunities are unlikely to qualify. For employers, it shows that a fair process and clear evidence of alternative reasons for dismissal can defeat a whistleblowing claim.
Similar cases
Whistleblower dismissal: former employee awarded £59,649 after making protected disclosures
A former employee of Fine Futures Limited has been awarded £59,649 after an employment tribunal found he was dismissed and subjected to detriment for making protected disclosures.
Whistleblowing dismissal after 38 years of NHS service: £472,800 compensation
A clinical care co-ordinator with 38 years' unblemished NHS service was unfairly dismissed for whistleblowing after raising concerns about staffing and patient safety. The tribunal awarded her £472,800.44.
Care home manager's whistleblowing claim fails as decision-maker unaware of disclosures
A care home manager who claimed he was automatically unfairly dismissed for raising concerns about resident safety lost his case. The tribunal found the decision-maker did not know about the disclosures and dismissed him for genuine belief in gross misconduct.
Care worker resigned after 'so bipolar' comment and sudden role change: constructive dismissal claim allowed to proceed
A care assessment officer who was told she was 'so bipolar' and had her role changed with less than 24 hours' notice has been allowed to add protected disclosure claims to her constructive dismissal case.