Advice Direct Scotland Ltd

Case Summary

The claimant was employed by the respondent charity and alleged he was subjected to detriments and automatically unfairly dismissed for making protected disclosures. This preliminary hearing determined that the claimant did not make any protected disclosures, so the claim was dismissed.

The tribunal found that the claimant did not make any protected disclosures as a matter of fact, which is a necessary element of the claim for detriment and automatic unfair dismissal under the Public Interest Disclosure Act. Without protected disclosures, the claim could not succeed.

• •whether the claimant made protected disclosures

EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No:4100709/2025 5 Held in Glasgow on 20 – 22 October; 11 & 12 December 2025 Employment Judge Campbell Mr P Sarkar Claimant 10 In Person Advice Direct Scotland Ltd Respondent 15 Represented by: Mr G Cunningham - Counsel JUDGMENT OF THE EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNAL 201. The claimant did not make any protected disclosures; and 2. The claim is therefore dismissed. REASONS Introduction 1. This open preliminary hearing was concerned with the issue of whether the 25claimant made protected disclosures as defined within sections 43A to L of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (the‘Act’). He had submitted complaints of detriment and automatically unfair dismissal on the grounds that such disclosures had been made. His period of service with the respondent was between 22 May 2023 and 31 January 2025, and he therefore did not have 30the two years required to make a ‘standard’ claim of unfair dismissal under sections 94 and 108 of the Act. 2. The listing of this hearing was decided upon at a case management preliminary hearing on 13 June 2025. At that time the claimant, again unrepresented, described his claim and the issues for determination were 35recorded at paragraph 3 of the judge’s note which followed. 3. The claimant gave evidence and called an employee of the respondent, Jordan Waddell as a witness. The respondent called Pamela Stewart (Deputy Chief Executive) and Andrew Bartlett (Chief Executive) as witnesses. 4100709/2025Page2 4.The claimant was employed by the respondent and held the position of Head of Technical Innovation. He alleged that he was both subjected to detriments (under section 47B of the Act) and automatically unfairly dismissed (under section 103A of the Act) by reason of making protected disclosures. If it was found on the conclusion of this hearing that he made protected…