David Green v The Lichfield Diocesan Board of Finance (Incorporated) & Anor

David Green v The Lichfield Diocesan Board of Finance (Incorporated) & Anor

The Tribunal found that although some disclosures met the statutory definition of protected disclosures, there was no causal link between any proven protected disclosure and the detriments suffered. The Respondents' decisions not to ordain the Claimant and not to recommend him for a tenured post were entirely reasonable and based on the Claimant's failure to meet required standards, not whistleblowing or perceived disability. All whistleblowing claims failed. The direct discrimination claims were presented out of time and, even if jurisdiction were assumed, failed on the merits as the Respondents did not perceive the Claimant as disabled nor treat him less favourably because of such...

Parties
Claimant: Mr David Green; First Respondent: The Lichfield Diocesan Board of Finance (Incorporated); Second Respondent: The Bishop of Lichfield (In his corporate capacity)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
17 March 2026
Procedural Posture
Employment Tribunal / Final Judgment
Outcome
All claims dismissed
Legal Topics
Whistleblowing, Direct Discrimination, Perceived Disability, Jurisdiction, Time Limits
Employment Law Equality Law Whistleblowing Direct Discrimination Perceived Disability Jurisdiction Time Limits

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr David Green

Claimant

The Lichfield Diocesan Board of Finance (Incorporated)

First Respondent

The Bishop of Lichfield (In his corporate capacity)

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Tribunal / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Respondents subjected the Claimant to whistleblowing detriment contrary to Section 47B of the Employment Rights Act 1996
  2. 2 Whether the Respondents directly discriminated against the Claimant on grounds of perceived disability contrary to Section 13 of the Equality Act 2010
  3. 3 Whether the claims were brought within the statutory time limits or should be allowed out of time

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal found that although some disclosures met the statutory definition of protected disclosures, there was no causal link between any proven protected disclosure and the detriments suffered. The Respondents' decisions not to ordain the Claimant and not to recommend him for a tenured post were entirely reasonable and based on the Claimant's failure to meet required standards, not whistleblowing or perceived disability. All whistleblowing claims failed. The direct discrimination claims were presented out of time and, even if jurisdiction were assumed, failed on the merits as the Respondents did not perceive the Claimant as disabled nor treat him less favourably because of such...

Court Disposition

All claims dismissed

Orders

  • Both Respondents are the correct parties to all claims
  • All whistleblowing detriment claims are dismissed