Blitz v Vectone Group Holdings Ltd (Revised 1) (Victimisation Discrimination : Protected disclosure) [2011] UKEAT 0253_10_2911 (29 November 2011)

Blitz v Vectone Group Holdings Ltd (Revised 1) (Victimisation Discrimination : Protected disclosure) [2011] UKEAT 0253_10_2911 (29 November 2011)

The Employment Tribunal was entitled to find, on the facts and contemporaneous documents, that the principal reason for the claimant's dismissal was dissatisfaction with his performance and judgment, not his protected disclosures. While some disclosures were qualifying, they were not causative of dismissal. The claimant did suffer minor detriments (late payment of salary and expenses) due to protected disclosures, but other alleged detriments were not established or causally linked. The Tribunal's approach to untested evidence was not perverse or unlawful.

Citation
[2011] UKEAT 0253_10_2911
Parties
Appellant/claimant: Adam (surname not specified); Respondent/employer: Vectone Group Holdings Ltd
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
29 November 2011
Procedural Posture
Employment Appeal / Appeal From Employment Tribunal Judgment Dated 1 March 2010
Outcome
Appeal dismissed in respect of unfair dismissal; minor detriment findings upheld; other grounds dismissed.
Legal Topics
Victimisation, Protected Disclosure (whistleblowing), Unfair Dismissal, Detriment, Health and Safety Disclosures, Remedies, Procedural Fairness
Employment Law Victimisation Protected Disclosure (whistleblowing) Unfair Dismissal Detriment Health and Safety Disclosures Remedies Procedural Fairness

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 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Adam (surname not specified)

Appellant/claimant

Vectone Group Holdings Ltd

Respondent/employer

Procedural Posture

Employment Appeal / Appeal From Employment Tribunal Judgment Dated 1 March 2010

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant was dismissed for making protected disclosures under the Employment Rights Act 1996
  2. 2 Whether the claimant suffered detriment as a result of making protected disclosures or health and safety disclosures
  3. 3 Whether the Employment Tribunal erred in law in its approach to evidence, particularly untested witness statements

Ratio Decidendi

The Employment Tribunal was entitled to find, on the facts and contemporaneous documents, that the principal reason for the claimant's dismissal was dissatisfaction with his performance and judgment, not his protected disclosures. While some disclosures were qualifying, they were not causative of dismissal. The claimant did suffer minor detriments (late payment of salary and expenses) due to protected disclosures, but other alleged detriments were not established or causally linked. The Tribunal's approach to untested evidence was not perverse or unlawful.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed in respect of unfair dismissal; minor detriment findings upheld; other grounds dismissed.

Orders

  • The Employment Tribunal's decision that the claimant was not dismissed for making protected disclosures is upheld.
  • Findings of minor detriment (late payment of salary and expenses) are upheld.