Want to talk to an expert employment law solicitor?

You'll receive a callback from a specialist within an hour

In Panayiotou v Kernaghan & Anor UKEAT/0436/13/RN the Employment Appeal Tribunal deliberated upon whether the reason for a dismissal is a complaint or, alternatively, whether the manner in which the complaint was made. The EAT found that the reason for the dismissal was the manner in which Mr Panayiotou had made his complaints (rather than the subject matter of the complaint itself) and that his dismissal was not therefore automatically unfair.

The facts

Mr Panayiotou joined Hampshire Police Force in 2000 and was employed by the organisation until 2012. At some point between 2000 and 2002 Mr Panayiotou submitted a grievance to senior police officers at the Hampshire Police Force concerning the attitude of police of particular police officers in respect of the treatment of race and the treatment of rape, child abuse, and domestic violence. Mr Panayiotou’s complaints were substantially upheld. However, Mr Panayiotou was not satisfied with the outcome in respect of a number of his complaints and began to complain for an outcome which he believed was more appropriate. When the police force did not take any action Mr Panayiotou believed that the matter was being covered up and sought to obtain redress from alternative representative bodies without success. Mr Panayiotou therefore began to believe that these representative bodies were being ‘bought off’ or warned off from assisting him.

A number of incidents then occurred: from October 2006 the police force refused to grant Mr Panayiotou’s application for an alternative business licence to allow him to be involved in his wife’s businesses. This application had previously been granted to Mr Panayiotou. Further, on October 2006 Mr Panayiotou was at home on sick leave when six officers arrived at his residence to arrest him on allegations that he was receiving sick pay whilst working without authorisation in his wife’s business.

Then, in 2007, surveillance of Mr Panayiotou was approved by the police force and two officers, DC Plummer and DC Wright (about whom Mr Panayiotou had made complaints in 2006), undertook surveillance of Mr Mr Panayiotou’s wife’s market stall in their own time in order to determine whether he was working in his wife’s business. The viewed was (erroneously) formed that Mr Panyiotou was carrying out a business in his own time and it was recommended that Mr Panyiotou be dismissed under regulation 7 of the Police Regulations 2003, which allowed a dismissal on the basis that a police officer had an incompatible business interest. This regulation had not previously been used by any police force and was conducted ‘in secret’, without Mr Panayiotou being allowed to put his case forward, and without a right of appeal.

Subsequent to his dismissal Mr Panayiotou brought an Employment Tribunal claim for automatic unfair dismissal under s.103 Employment Rights Act 1996 (that his dismissal was unfair because he had been dismissed wholly or principally because of his protected disclosures, also known as “whistleblowing”).

The Employment Tribunal was critical of Hampshire Police Force’s actions in rejecting Mr Panayiotou’s application in about 2006 to work in his wife’s business, and also criticised the police force for placing him under surveillance in 2006 and for dismissing him under regulation 7 of the Police Regulations 2003. However, the Employment Tribunal rejected Mr Mr Panayiotou’s claim for automatic unfair dismissal, holding that the reason for his dismissal was not his protected disclosures but the manner in which these had been made, as well as the exasperation of the police force with the amount of paid sick leave that he had taken while seeking to be involved with the family businesses. The Tribunal concluded that “…the actions of the Claimant were sufficient to try and exhaust the patience of any organisation…”.

Mr Panayiotou appealed the judgment of the Employment Tribunal. The Employment Appeal Tribunal, chaired by The Honorable Mr Justice Lewis, dismissed Mr Panayiotou’s appeal and held that the Tribunal was entitled to (1) conclude that the manner in which Mr Panayiotou had pursued his complaints (as well as the other features) were separable from the fact that he had made protected disclosures; and (2) that the employer had acted to dismiss Mr Panayiotou in reliance on the manner in which he had pursued his complaints, as well as other factors.

What does this mean for me?

In Panayiotou the Mr Panayiotou’s actions, in the Tribunal’s view, amounted to a ‘campaign’ against his employer and that the fact and nature of that campaign may have been sufficient in and of itself to justify his dismissal, notwithstanding the criticisms that the Tribunal made of the process utilised in dismissing Mr Panayiotou. In order to avoid the consequences in Panayiotou it is important for ‘whistleblowers’ to ensure that their complaints are put cogently and reasonably to the appropriate persons and that their actions in pursuing those complaints are necessary, proportionate, and reasonable.

Why is this case significant?

This was the first case in which the manner of a protected disclosure was separated from the fact and content of the disclosure, and can be used by individuals and organisations as a potential line of defence against protected disclosure claims in the Employment Tribunal if the relevant disclosures are made in an unreasonable manner.

The Employment Appeal Tribunal of the judgment in Panayiotou v Kernaghan & Anor can be found on Bailii here.

About Chris Hadrill

Chris is a specialist employment lawyer at Redmans. He specialises in contentious and non-contentious employment matters, including breach of contract claims, compromise agreements and Employment Tribunal cases. He writes on employment law matters on a variety of websites, including Direct 2 Lawyers, Lawontheweb.co.uk, LegalVoice, the Justice Gap and his own blog. Contact Chris by emailing him at chadrill@redmans.co.uk

Share →

Our awards

Request a callback

Your name

Your email

Your telephone number

Contact us

Please feel free to discuss your own position and concerns. Contact your nearest office on:

T: 020 3397 3603
E: enquiries@redmans.co.uk
W: www.redmans.co.uk


4.64 Average

28 Reviews


Excellent service from initial contact to deliverables.

Posted 4 days ago

Virginia K

Yes, Chris Hadrill answered all my questions and I feel more confident with my current situation

Posted 4 days ago


Chris Hadrill was referred to me my a friend of mine. I found the service to be efficient, quick and like Chris's direct approach to my work. Well done and thank you Chris!

Posted 6 days ago

Andy W

Very prompt & structured service that helped put my mind at rest at a difficult time

Posted 1 week ago


I have found Redmans to be very helpful, diligant and thoroughly professional when dealing with them, plus they gone that extra mile for me !

Posted 3 weeks ago


Thank you to Chris Hadrill at Redmans for his assistance in settling my case. I contacted him at the very last minute and he was happy to help me and managed to get everything done on time and in a very professional manner. I will definitely be happy to work with him again .

Posted 1 month ago

Redman's provided excellent legal employment advice for me during a difficult time in my employment. Chris was my lawyer, super efficient, quick, reliable and clearly very experienced in the matter. Could not ask for a better law firm to deal with your query if you are in need of some help. Would definitely use them again in the future. Highly recommending Chris.

Posted 4 months ago


Chris Hadrill was very professional and responsive. I would highly recommend him

Posted 4 months ago


Very Efficient, with very quick email reply’s. I had a matter that needed resolving within a very short space of time and Redmans Solicitors were great with dealing with my matter quickly.

Posted 4 months ago


At Redmans the solicitor that was dealing with me was Chris. He dealt with my situation smoothly with clear guidance and explanation

Posted 5 months ago


Clear, concise advice and guidance delivered by an experienced and very capable solicitor, within the timelines required

Posted 5 months ago


Very efficient service. I never had to wIt for more than a day for a reply to any of my queries and the matter was dealt with swiftly.

Posted 5 months ago


Very timely, thorough and helpful advice. Friendly and considerate of the needs of the client

Posted 5 months ago


Very prompt and attention to detail. Thank you for the service

Posted 5 months ago


Couldn’t be happier with how Redmans successfully handled our seemingly tricky case. By being clear and detailed every step of the way, with the utmost professionalism and courtesy, they made it an informative and eye-opening process, taking the stress out of the situation and ultimately delivered what you would want from such a service. I fully appreciate everything they have done, and if I am ever in need of such services in the future, they will be the first number I contact. Excellent.

Posted 5 months ago


Excellent work delivered with great quality

Posted 5 months ago


Chris Hadrill was a great help both in terms of his advice and his expertise. He explained my options to me clearly and concisely enabling me to quickly make the right decision for me in the circumstance. I would not hesitate to recommend Chris or Redmans to friends or colleagues, and would certainly make Redmans my first port of call should I require a similar service in the future.

Posted 5 months ago


Redmans gave excellent advice and helped me understand everything in clear concepts. Thank you!

Posted 5 months ago


Resolved my issues

Posted 5 months ago


Quick fast professional service.

Posted 5 months ago


"Prompt, efficient and practical advice that resulted in me getting some additional money tax free."

Posted 5 months ago