Accountant's Whistleblowing Claim Partially Succeeds as Appeal Tribunal Orders New Hearing
An accountant's whistleblowing detriment claim will be reheard after the Employment Appeal Tribunal found errors in the original decision.
• public
Employment Appeal Tribunal Overturns Part of Original Ruling
An accountant, Miss Elena Bibescu, has seen a portion of her whistleblowing case succeed at the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT). While her claim for automatically unfair dismissal due to whistleblowing was dismissed, her claim for detriment on the grounds of whistleblowing has been remitted for a fresh hearing.
Tribunal's Initial Decision on Whistleblowing
Miss Bibescu was employed by accountancy practice Clare Jenner Limited t/a Jenner’s. She brought complaints of automatically unfair dismissal under the Employment Rights Act 1996, specifically concerning whistleblowing and health and safety. She also claimed detriment for whistleblowing.
The initial Employment Tribunal concluded that while Miss Bibescu had disclosed information to her employer, it was not done in the public interest. Furthermore, the tribunal found that none of the specific factors required under section 43B of the ERA had been proven. The tribunal determined that the principal reason for her dismissal was her performance, not any protected disclosure she had made.
Appeal Tribunal Finds Errors in Law
On appeal, the EAT agreed with the tribunal’s finding regarding the reason for dismissal, stating it was a rational factual conclusion based on the evidence presented. However, the EAT identified legal errors in the tribunal's handling of the whistleblowing detriment claim (section 47B ERA).
The EAT found that the original tribunal had failed to make necessary findings regarding Miss Bibescu's state of mind and had wrongly substituted its own view on the question of reasonable belief. The tribunal's reasons, the EAT noted, appeared to focus on motive rather than the claimant's genuine belief that her disclosures were in the public interest and tended to show a relevant wrongdoing.
Remitted for Rehearing
Consequently, the EAT has remitted all elements of Miss Bibescu's section 47B ERA complaint to a differently constituted tribunal. This decision acknowledges that the original tribunal made material errors of law in assessing the protected disclosure elements. The EAT also observed that Tribunal judgments should clearly dispose of all complaints and that reasons should reflect the conclusions of the entire panel.
Read the entire judgment here: Miss Elena Bibescu v Clare Jenner Limited t/a Jenner’s [2026] EAT 30
