Case study: Redmans wins settlement of £10,000 for client in Employment Tribunal whistleblowing claim


How Chris Hadrill successfully represented a client in her claim for detriment and/or dismissal due to protected disclosures (colloquially known as “whistleblowing”) in the Employment Tribunal on a ‘no win no fee’ basis and secured a settlement of £10,000.

The situation

DS worked as a volunteer in the shop of a well-known charity, managing a team of other volunteers in the shop. Part of the recruitment process for volunteers was that the charity was supposed to carry out a CRB check on each applicant in order to determine whether the volunteer had a criminal record of any kind.

In July 2014 a volunteer was recruited (“AB”) by the charity and assigned to DS’s shop. No checks were undertaken on AB before he started work at the shop and DS later learned that several referees had refused to provide references for AB upon request from the charity.

In September 2014 DS became concerned that AB was acting erratically in the shop and she asked him to resign as a volunteer (one of the concerns that DS had was that she had caught AB reading her emails on her computer). However, AB continued to attend the shop and engage in erratic conduct. DS then instructed AB that he was being dismissed as a volunteer.

In October 2014 DS’s house was burgled and vandalised, with a number of personal items being stolen. DS informed the police of this incident and she was told that the police suspected that AB had burgled her house. DS was subsequently asked by management at the charity not to talk to the media about what had happened and then, after she took a pre-booked period of annual leave, she was told that the charity would understand if she did not return to her role at the charity. DS then began to suspect that the charity was trying to ‘cover up’ its failure to do a CRB check.

In November 2014 DS complained that the charity had failed to obtain the appropriate references for AB and that their failure had caused her extreme distress.

After DS’s complaint to the charity she felt that the charity ‘closed ranks’ against her, and that she was felt that she was being isolated and excluded. She submitted a formal written grievance regarding the unfair conduct she believed that she was being subjected to in late November 2014. DS was then told that she was being disciplined on allegations that she had threatened other staff members and put the charity’s reputation at risk because of her behaviour. DS was subsequently given a warning as a result of the disciplinary investigation, which she was extremely unhappy about.

In March 2015 DS’s employment was terminated without notice by the charity.

What we did

Chris Hadrill, a specialist employment solicitor at Redmans, represented DS on a ‘no win no fee’ basis in her Employment Tribunal claim against the charity, advising her to bring claims for detriment due to protected disclosure, automatic unfair dismissal, and wrongful dismissal. Chris also advised DS to seek compensation for loss of earnings, injury to feelings, aggravated damages, and personal injury.

Chris dealt with the procedure of the claim and represented DS throughout the claim, dealing with the Employment Tribunal and negotiating the matter directly with the solicitors that the charity instructed it to help it defend the claim.

The result

The Company made a number of offers of settlement as the case proceeded, and an offer of £10,000 in full and final settlement of DS’s claims was agreed. Settlement agreement terms were then agreed, under which DS would receive the agreed sum of money and a reference.

Chris Hadrill, the employment solicitor who represented Anna in her matter, made the following comment on the case: “It was a pleasure to represent the client in this matter, and we were delighted with the outcome – employers must ensure that workers, employees and contractors are not subjected to any detriment or dismissed if anyone ‘blows the whistle’, otherwise they may fact an Employment Tribunal claim.”

Please note that all of the names used for clients and third parties in this article and all other articles are anonymised (unless expressly stated otherwise) to protect client confidentiality and in order to avoid breaching confidentiality clauses (if relevant)