Employment Appeal Tribunal Overturns ET Ruling on Whistleblowing and Dismissal Timing
The Employment Appeal Tribunal has found an Employment Tribunal erred in its assessment of protected disclosures and the timing of a dismissal.
• public
EAT Overturns ET Ruling on Whistleblowing and Dismissal Timing
The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has found that an Employment Tribunal (ET) made legal errors in its assessment of protected disclosure complaints and the critical question of when an employee was dismissed. This ruling means a case concerning Mr Aman Khan and his former employer, Novai Limited, will be heard again by a new tribunal panel.
The original ET judgment concluded that Mr Khan had not made any qualifying or protected disclosures. It also found that the decision to dismiss him had been made on or around 13 December 2021, which was prior to any alleged disclosures made by Mr Khan in January 2022. This led to the dismissal of his claims.
Critique of Protected Disclosure Assessment
The EAT, in its judgment delivered by His Honour Judge James Tayler, found the original tribunal's assessment of Mr Khan's disclosures to be "wholly insufficient." The tribunal had stated that Mr Khan's contentions about protected disclosures were a "developing concept" during the hearing and seemed to focus on his assertion that test data had failed, rather than the pleading of the protected disclosures themselves.
Judge Tayler highlighted that the ET's assessments of individual emails were often brief, simply stating there was "no disclosure of information" or that the information disclosed did not tend to show a breach of legal obligation. The EAT felt that the tribunal failed to adequately assess the "qualifying disclosure questions" as outlined in relevant case law. This included considering whether there was a disclosure of information, whether the claimant reasonably believed it showed wrongdoing, and if it was made in the public interest.
Timing of Dismissal Decision Questioned
The EAT also found that the original tribunal's conclusion on the timing of Mr Khan's dismissal was not properly reasoned. While the ET's own findings of fact stated a dismissal decision "appears to have either been made or was being considered subject to advice from lawyers," it later concluded definitively that a decision had been taken before a board meeting on 15 December 2021.
The appeal centred on a series of points raised by Mr Khan, suggesting the dismissal decision could not have been made on or about 13 December 2021. These included the absence of minutes for a supposed meeting on that date, conflicting statements in the employer's ET3 response regarding the dismissal date, and communications referring to the dismissal occurring in late January or early February 2022.
The EAT agreed that these points, amongst others raised by Mr Khan, required consideration by the Employment Tribunal. Because the determination of the dismissal date was not properly reasoned, the matter must be considered afresh.
Remission to a New Tribunal
Given the fundamental nature of the errors identified in the original judgment, the EAT has ordered that the case be remitted to a differently constituted Employment Tribunal. This will allow for a complete rehearing of the matters in dispute, ensuring a fresh and thorough examination of both the protected disclosure claims and the timing of Mr Khan's dismissal.
Read the entire judgement here: Mr Aman Khan v (1) Novai Limited (2) Mr James Rawlingson [2026] EAT 19
