For tailored advice on managing whistleblowing disclosures and mitigating risk, complete the form below or call 0330 123 9501 to speak with our expert employment law team.
This case study explores the Argence-Lafon whistleblowing dispute, offering practical guidance for employers to manage disclosures and maintain control in sensitive situations.
29 October 2025
Case Study
Employers who have dealt with whistleblowing cases will know that great care must be taken to avoid worsening the situation through subsequent actions. It is not uncommon for employers to need to take legitimate management steps, which employees may then allege amount to “detriment” as a result of their protected disclosures.
In Argence-Lafon v Ark Syndicate Management Ltd, recently considered by the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT), the employee’s insistence on perceived wrongdoing ultimately impaired his ability to perform his role, leading to complex questions about how employers can respond fairly and proportionately in such circumstances.
Mr Argence-Lafon worked as an underwriter specialising in marine energy insurance. A dispute arose over a $50 million claim following an explosion in a Vietnamese mine. Believing the claim to be fraudulent, he raised his concerns with his employer, Ark Syndicate Management Ltd. Initially, Ark supported his investigation, which was a reasonable step given the scale of the claim.
However, as the investigation progressed, it became apparent to everyone except Mr Argence-Lafon that the claim was legitimate. He rejected this conclusion and went on to allege that his employer, and several of his senior colleagues, were complicit in fraud by allowing the claim to proceed.
Ark commissioned independent experts and loss adjusters to review the matter. Their findings confirmed that the claim was valid, and Mr Argence-Lafon was repeatedly advised to move on. Despite this, he continued to pursue his allegations and became increasingly focused on proving wrongdoing. His attention to the issue distracted him from his day-to-day responsibilities, and his performance declined significantly.
Although Ark provided support and opportunities to improve, his performance did not recover. He was placed on a formal capability plan, which he claimed was an act of retaliation and therefore an unlawful detriment for his whistleblowing disclosures.
When he failed to engage with the improvement process and relationships deteriorated further, Ark dismissed him for refusing lawful management instructions and for an overall breakdown in trust and confidence. Mr Argence-Lafon brought claims for unfair dismissal and unlawful detriment before the Employment Tribunal.
Case Study
The Employment Tribunal found that Mr Argence-Lafon had not been subjected to detriment. His employer had undertaken a thorough investigation into his claims and had reasonable grounds for ultimately dismissing his concerns.
Once the investigation concluded, the employee should have accepted the employer’s position and moved on. The Tribunal concluded that the imposition of a performance improvement plan was unlikely to be an act of retaliation. Instead, it was a legitimate measure to help him return to the role he was employed to perform, which he had been failing to do.
The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) upheld this aspect of the decision. It found that the employee had clearly abandoned his duties in pursuit of his allegations, and it was reasonable for the employer to attempt to refocus him on his work. This conclusion was supported by the independent investigations, which confirmed that there was no fraudulent behaviour. The EAT emphasised that employers do not need to prove with absolute certainty what occurred, but they must act reasonably based on the evidence available. While whistleblowing protection prevents retribution, it does not make an employee immune from criticism or lawful management instructions.
However, the dismissal was found to be procedurally unfair. The Employment Tribunal concluded that the disclosures were not the reason for the dismissal, but the employer had failed to adequately notify the employee of the allegations regarding the breakdown of trust and confidence before the disciplinary hearing. In other words, he was not given a fair opportunity to respond. The Employment Appeal Tribunal later allowed the employer’s cross-appeal, noting that the Tribunal had not assessed whether the internal appeal process had remedied the procedural unfairness. This issue has now been remitted to the Employment Tribunal for reconsideration.
When managing a whistleblowing situation, employers must balance taking allegations seriously with maintaining operational performance and fairness. The following steps can help reduce risk and manage the process effectively:
The Court of Appeal has provided important guidance on the enforceability of training repayment clauses in employment contracts.
Read More
The Employment Appeal Tribunal has clarified when employers may be deemed to have knowledge of an employee's disability.
Read More
Download our probationary period resource pack to help prepare for the Employment Rights Act changes from January 2027.
Read More
An employer's failure to involve an employee in an investigation led to findings of disability discrimination and compensation.
Read More
The EAT highlights the limits of protected conversations and the risks employers face when discussions are handled incorrectly.
Read More
Employer ordered to pay over £264,000 after a reference referring to an ongoing dispute was found to amount to victimisation.
Read More
Download expert guidance on UK trade union reforms and prepare your organisation for Employment Rights Act changes.
Read More
EAT confirms endometriosis can be a disability and examines reasonable adjustments, dismissal risks and performance management issues for employers.
Read More
EAT confirms withdrawing a conditional job offer can breach contract with employers understanding when an offer is binding and notice applies.
Read More
EAT confirms leaving transferred staff on inferior terms can amount to indirect discrimination, even under TUPE.
Read More
EAT confirms dismissal must be based on the employer’s actual reason, not a substitute. Incorrect reasoning can make dismissal unfair.
Read More
EAT finds dismissal unfair in Milrine v DHL (2026). Key lessons for employers on appeal processes and reducing tribunal risk.
Read More