The Employment Appeal Tribunal dismissed an appeal against the strike-out of whistleblowing detriment claims brought against external HR consultants who had conducted grievance and disciplinary processes but did not make the dismissal decision.

Background

The claimant, a director and employee of the first respondent hotel company made allegations of financial impropriety and was subsequently subjected to grievance complaints from colleagues. The fourth respondent, an external HR consultant, investigated these grievances, finding some substantiated. The fifth respondent, another external HR consultant, conducted a disciplinary hearing and produced a report recommending dismissal as justified. The claimant was subsequently dismissed by the first respondent.

Judgment

Judge Auerbach held that while the tribunal erred in concluding external HR consultants could not possibly act as agents when conducting investigations; it correctly determined that agency liability cannot extend to a dismissal decision outside their remit:

“Even if the tribunal might conclude that the third respondent’s decision to dismiss was wholly reliant upon the fifth respondent’s report, that was still a distinct decision, taken and implemented by him, and not by her.”

The appeal was dismissed as neither consultant could be liable for a dismissal they did not implement, regardless of any alleged influence or causative role.

Endnote

The EAT clarified the application of agency principles in employment whistleblowing claims:

This decision provides important clarification on the scope of agency liability in whistleblowing claims, establishing boundaries for external consultants’ exposure while acknowledging their potential agency status within defined remits.

Read the full decision of the Employment Appeal Tribunal: Handa v The Station Hotel (Newcastle) Ltd [2025] EAT 62