Employment Appeal Tribunal Clarifies Limits of Repeated Whistleblowing Allegations

In <span class="news-text_italic-underline">Argence-Lafon v Ark Syndicate Management Ltd [2025] EAT 124</span>, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (“<span class="news-text_medium">EAT</span>”) upheld findings that repeated allegations made after a thorough investigation may fall outside the scope of statutory whistleblowing protection. The decision provides important guidance on the concepts of reasonable belief, protected disclosures and the distinction between whistleblowing and conduct-related dismissal.

The case concerned an insurance company handling a claim arising from an alleged underground blowout during oil well drilling operations. The claimant made a number of protected disclosures alleging that the claim was potentially fraudulent. These concerns were investigated by relevant experts and the employer concluded that they were unsubstantiated. Despite this, the claimant continued to raise the same concerns, repeatedly rejecting the expert findings.

During this period, the claimant was set performance objectives and subsequently placed on a formal performance improvement plan (“<span class="news-text_medium">PIP</span>”). He continued to assert that the claim was fraudulent and that the PIP constituted retaliation for his disclosures. He also raised a grievance alleging that two managers were personally complicit in the alleged fraud. The grievance was not upheld. The claimant failed to engage with the PIP, did not agree to the performance objectives and did not propose alternatives.

The claimant was eventually dismissed on the basis of a complete breakdown in trust and confidence, arising from his continued allegations of fraud despite the investigation’s conclusions and his refusal to engage with the performance process. The claimant brought proceedings in the Employment Tribunal, alleging that he had been subjected to detriment and dismissed because he had made protected disclosures, contrary to the <span class="news-text_italic-underline">Employment Rights Act 1996</span>. He argued that the initial performance objectives, the PIP and his dismissal were all causally connected to his disclosures.

The Employment Tribunal rejected the claim and the EAT upheld its findings on appeal. The Tribunal made three key findings of note.

• First, following the completion of a full and proper investigation, it was no longer reasonable for the claimant to believe that the information he continued to disclose tended to show wrongdoing or that it was in the public interest. As a result, the repeated allegations did not constitute further protected disclosures.
• Second, the Tribunal found that the alleged detriments were not imposed on the grounds of the claimant’s earlier protected disclosures.
• Third, the Tribunal held that the reason, or principal reason, for the claimant’s dismissal was his conduct, rather than the making of protected disclosures.

Although the EAT remitted the case to the Employment Tribunal for consideration of whether the dismissal was unfair under ordinary unfair dismissal principles, the whistleblowing aspects of the claim were disposed of. The decision highlights the importance of the employer’s response to initial whistleblowing concerns. The Tribunal placed significant weight on the fact that the concerns were taken seriously, investigated thoroughly and addressed transparently. This approach enabled the employer to demonstrate that subsequent actions were not motivated by the disclosures themselves.

The case re-emphasises that while whistleblowing protections are broad, they are not unlimited. Once concerns have been properly investigated and found to be unsubstantiated, continued repetition of the same allegations may fall outside statutory protection, particularly where the employee’s belief is no longer reasonable.