O Argence-Lafon v Ark Syndicate Management: EAT whistleblowing judgement analysis

The Employment Appeal Tribunal delivered its judgement in August 2025 regarding O Argence-Lafon v Ark Syndicate Management Limited, a case centring on whistleblowing claims and associated unfair dismissal allegations within the Lloyd's insurance market.

The appellant, O Argence-Lafon, contended that he suffered detriments and dismissal following protected disclosures concerning potential misconduct related to an insurance claim. His allegations raised fundamental questions about the scope of whistleblower protections under current employment legislation.

Case background and tribunal proceedings

The matter originated from proceedings at London Central Employment Tribunal in 2022, spanning multiple hearing days. The central issue concerned whether the tribunal erred in finding that Argence-Lafon failed to establish causation between his disclosures and subsequent dismissal, or between his whistleblowing activities and alleged detriments.

Argence-Lafon argued he had made several disclosures regarding an ENI insurance claim, expressing concerns about potential fraudulent behaviour by the Italian company. He maintained that Ark Syndicate Management Limited's underwriting decisions lacked adequate scrutiny of loss adjuster evidence, potentially breaching legal compliance obligations.

EAT findings on protected disclosures

The EAT upheld the employment tribunal's analysis of protected disclosure requirements. Significantly, two of Argence-Lafon's initial disclosures were deemed protected under section 43B of the Employment Rights Act 1996, meeting the reasonable belief threshold for revealing wrongdoing.

However, the tribunal distinguished between these early disclosures and subsequent allegations. Two later disclosures failed to qualify for protection, primarily because Argence-Lafon could not demonstrate reasonable belief that these revealed illegality or wrongdoing. This distinction emphasises the necessity for disclosures to be grounded in reasonable belief supported by available evidence at the time of making such claims.

The employment tribunal noted that whilst Argence-Lafon's initial concerns appeared genuine and warranted reporting, his later allegations regarding fraudulent activity lacked sufficient factual foundation. The tribunal observed that mere assertion of belief, without supporting evidence, proves insufficient to establish protected disclosure status.

The judgement highlighted Argence-Lafon's extensive disputes with expert loss adjuster opinions regarding the insurance claims. Although he believed he was acting in the public interest, the evidence suggested otherwise, undermining the credibility of his subsequent allegations.

Dismissal and performance issues

The employment tribunal's most contentious finding concerned the unfair dismissal claim. Rather than attributing dismissal to the protected disclosures, the tribunal concluded that dismissal resulted from Argence-Lafon's failure to engage effectively with a Performance Improvement Plan implemented by Ark Syndicate Management.

The tribunal emphasised the claimant's inability to meet reasonable performance targets for his position following several months of employment. This finding demonstrates the importance of distinguishing between legitimate performance management and potential victimisation for whistleblowing activities.

Legal implications

The EAT's review reinforced established principles requiring clear delineation between dismissal rationale and whistleblowing activities. The judgement confirms that protected disclosures must be both credible and communicated appropriately within employment frameworks to secure statutory protection against detriments.

This case illustrates the complexity surrounding whistleblower protections, particularly in specialist sectors like insurance where technical expertise and regulatory compliance intersect. The judgement emphasises that employers must maintain robust procedures for handling misconduct allegations whilst ensuring legitimate performance management processes remain distinct from any potential victimisation for raising concerns.

The decision provides valuable guidance on the evidential requirements for establishing protected disclosure status and the causation tests applicable in whistleblowing claims.