Written by In a case described as “unusual, extraordinary, and complex,” Head of Corporate Governance and charity governance expert Noreen E. Metcalf BSc (Grad IOSH), FIIRSM, CMgr FCMI. has successfully won claims of constructive and wrongful dismissal in an Employment Tribunal against St Anne’s Community Services (Ms N Metcalf v St Anne’s Community Services Ltd: 1801607/2023).
St Anne’s, a charity regulated by the Charity Commission, the Regulator of Social Housing, and the Care Quality Commission, employs over 1,300 staff to support more than 1,600 vulnerable people. The charity is managed by a senior leadership team and strategically led by a Board of Trustees. This judgment shines a spotlight on the challenges faced by whistleblowers in the UK, particularly in the charity sector, as well as the limitations of current legal protections.
A Whistleblower’s Fight for Accountability
Ms Metcalf, a professional with extensive experience, brought claims after resigning from her role at St Anne’s. The Tribunal found that her resignation resulted from a series of actions by the charity that breached the trust and confidence integral to her employment contract.
Central to the case were disclosures Ms Metcalf made about serious governance and financial due diligence failings within the organisation. While some concerns were deemed protected disclosures under whistleblowing laws, the Tribunal dismissed claims that these directly led to detrimental treatment. Despite this, Ms Metcalf’s constructive dismissal claim was upheld, with the Tribunal identifying a “cumulative breach of the implied term of trust and confidence.” This finding lent weight to her argument that systemic leadership and governance failures drove her to resign.
An Unusual Victory in the Charity Sector
Whistleblowing cases are notoriously difficult to win, particularly when brought against large organisations and pursued as a litigant in person. What made this case especially noteworthy was its backdrop in the charity sector, where public trust and integrity are paramount.
Ms Metcalf refused to sign a Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA) offered by St Anne’s, prioritising public accountability instead. She remarked, “The Head of Corporate Governance is the keeper of the organisation’s conscience, ensuring systems, rules, practices, and processes are in place and followed. It is a balance of leading by example and with integrity, ensuring the best interests and reputation of the organisation and its key stakeholders are protected. It is a role of integrity—you stand by it or fall by the lack of it.” Her stance demonstrated an exceptional commitment to transparency, truth, and accountability—qualities often tested in whistleblowing disputes.
A Remedy Hearing Marred by Accusations
On 7 January, the Tribunal convened a remedy hearing to determine compensation. During this session, opposing counsel invoked the legal precedent of Polkey (Polkey v AE Dayton Services Ltd [1987] UKHL 8)—a case often cited to argue for reduced damages in dismissal claims. However, the argument failed. Evidence presented overwhelmingly contradicted claims of Ms Metcalf’s alleged poor performance, instead highlighting her exemplary track record.
Efforts by the charity to undermine Ms Metcalf, including four unfounded allegations of gross misconduct, were brought into sharp focus. The Tribunal unequivocally rejected these accusations. This relentless attempt to discredit Ms Metcalf was compared to the dismembered knight in Monty Python’s The Holy Grail, still attempting to fight despite overwhelming odds.
Observers noted the charity’s approach raised questions about its leadership accountability and ethical standards. Ms Metcalf also highlighted discrepancies in the testimony of senior figures, including the CEO, Vice-Chair, and HR Director, which she argued undermined the organisation’s credibility in the proceedings.
“Beyond the Beyond” Experience for the Whistleblower
Reflecting on the judgment, Ms Metcalf shared the personal toll the case had taken: “This experience has been beyond the beyond. I have suffered on all fronts—professionally, financially, and psychologically.” She criticised whistleblowing protections as “prehistoric and unfit for purpose in today’s world,” calling for urgent reform to better support and protect whistleblowers.
Her victory, while a personal triumph, exposes systemic shortcomings in UK whistleblowing laws. As a litigant in person, her case highlights the extraordinary resilience required to pursue justice in sectors where accountability and values should be foundational.
A Call for Change
Ms Metcalf’s case raises significant questions about the ethical responsibilities of charities and their leadership. Her refusal to be silenced by an NDA and her prioritisation of public accountability over personal gain have positioned her as a beacon for reform.
While the judgment closes this legal battle, it serves as a broader reminder of the courage required to challenge influential organisations. Ms Metcalf’s story is a clarion call for stronger whistleblowing protections, more accountable leadership, and systemic change to safeguard those who speak truth to power.
in the nhs this misspent badly needed money could go to patient care not greedy lawyers serving dysfunctional managers. nos at the top must change their policy of persecuting whistleblowing doctors.