Clare Jenner Ltd ta Jenners

Judgment approved by the court for handing down Bibescu v Clare Jenner Ltd t/a Jenner’s © EAT 2026 Page 1 [2026] EAT 30 Neutral Citation Number: [2026] EAT 30 Case No: EA-2022-001112-TH EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL Rolls Building Fetter Lane, London, EC4A 1NL Date: 24 February 2026 Before: THE HON. LORD FAIRLEY, PRESIDENT: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Between: Miss Elena Bibescu Appellant - and - Clare Jenner Limited t/a Jenner’s Respondent - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - The Appellant, in person, by video link No appearance by the Respondent Hearing date: 10 February 2026 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - JUDGMENT Judgment approved by the court for handing down Bibescu v Clare Jenner Ltd t/a Jenner’s © EAT 2026 Page 2 [2026] EAT 30 SUMMARY Whistleblowing; reasonable belief in public interest and section 43B factors Unfair dismissal; reason for dismissal The claimant was employed by the respondent from 21 November 2018 until her dismissal on 11 June 2020. She brought complaints of automatically unfair dismissal in terms of section 103A of the Employment Rights Act, 1996 (“ERA”) (whistleblowing), section 47B ERA (detriment on the ground of whistleblowing), and automatically unfair dismissal contrary to section 100(1)(d) ERA (health and safety). In the whistleblowing complaints, the Tribunal concluded that although the claimant had disclosed information to her employer, (a) she had not done so in the public interest; and (b) none of the section 43B ERA factors had been proved. It further concluded that the reason for the claimant’s dismissal was her performance rather than the making of a protected disclosure. The claimant appealed against those conclusions. Held: (1) The Tribunal’s conclusion about the reason for dismissal was a finding of fact. Correctly, the Tribunal reco...