Oxfordshire County Council and S Tomlin

Case Summary

Mr M Steward was employed as Site Manager at Langford Village Community Primary School from July to December 2023. He brought claims for whistleblowing detriment, alleging he was subjected to unlawful detriments following protected disclosures regarding fire safety and health and safety compliance. The tribunal found the claimant was subject to unlawful detriments in the form of two unsatisfactory/negative references provided because of his protected disclosures.

The tribunal found the claimant made qualifying protected disclosures under section 43B of the Employment Rights Act 1996 regarding fire safety and health and safety compliance at the school, and that he suffered unlawful detriments in the form of two unsatisfactory/negative references as a result of those disclosures.

Use these claim-type pages to compare this decision with other published tribunal cases, outcome patterns, and visible award data.

• •Whether the claimant made qualifying protected disclosures under section 43B Employment Rights Act 1996
• •Whether the claimant was subject to unlawful detriments because of protected disclosures
• •Whether the provision of two unsatisfactory/negative references constituted unlawful detriment
• •Vicarious liability of the first respondent

1 EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS Claimant: Mr M Steward Respondents: Oxfordshire County Council (1) Sarah Tomlin (2) Sarah Bridge (3) Heard at: Reading On: 23-26 March & in chambers 27 March & 7 May 2026 Before: Employment Judge Anstis L Farrell F Wright Representation: Claimant: Mr R Magara (solicitor) Respondent: Mr L Wilson (counsel) RESERVED JUDGMENT 1. The claimant’s claims against the third respondent are dismissed on withdrawal, and the third respondent is removed as a party to this case. To the extent that those claims are also alleged against the first respondent under para 8.1 of the list of issues set out in the appendix to the claim, they are also dismissed on withdrawal. 2. The claimant was subject to unlawful detriments because of protected disclosures. The unlawful detriments are the provision of two unsatisfactory/negative references. 3. The claimant’s other claims are dismissed. REASONS A. INTRODUCTION 1. Mr Magara accurately summarises the dispute between the parties in the first two paragraphs of his closing submissions on behalf of the claimant: 2 “The claimant was employed by the First Respondent at Langford Village Community Primary School (“the School”) as a Site Manager from 10 July 2023 until his resignation on 5 December 2023 with notice. His employment terminated on 20 December 2023. He brings claims for whistleblowing detriment. The respondent defends the claims, denying that the claimant was subject to any detriment as alleged as a result of making any protected disclosures.” 2. There are no claims in respect of constructive dismissal. 3. The second respondent was the headteacher of the school at the relevant times, and the third respondent was the school business manager, to whom the claimant reported. 4. The list of issues we are working to for this claim appears in the appendix to these reasons. Those at para 8 are struck through on …