Compliance Radar
Who was sanctioned, and for what?
Fines, court rulings and incidents from Europe and North America: 718 cases from 32 jurisdictions, each with an official source and checked against that source before publication. Filter by country, area of law and sector. Click a chart to drill down one level.
Click a bar to drill down one level.
Where?
by authority- Employment Tribunal €113,504 100 % · 5 cases
What for?
by action- Other €113,504 100 % · 5 cases
Who?
by sectorAll sectors
When?
per quarter, by date of decision| Period | Cases | Total |
|---|---|---|
| Q3 2023 | 0 | — |
| Q4 2023 | 0 | — |
| Q1 2024 | 0 | — |
| Q2 2024 | 0 | — |
| Q3 2024 | 0 | — |
| Q4 2024 | 0 | — |
| Q1 2025 | 0 | — |
| Q2 2025 | 0 | — |
| Q3 2025 | 0 | — |
| Q4 2025 | 1 | €23,018 |
| Q1 2026 | 0 | — |
| Q2 2026 | 2 | €82,264 |
| Q3 2026 | 2 | €8,222 |
5 cases
16 Jul 2026 Royal Mail Group LtdTribunal: Royal Mail subjected whistleblower to detriment – £6,978 compensation €8,222
The Employment Tribunal in Manchester found that the claimant had been subjected to detriment because of a protected disclosure and awarded her the agreed amount of £6,978.20. The claims for disability discrimination and constructive dismissal were dismissed.
Large organisations, too, must ensure that whistleblowers do not suffer disadvantages in their day-to-day work.
How managers handle internal reports
- Authority / court
- Employment Tribunal
- Area of law
- Whistleblower protection · Retaliation against whistleblowers
- Legal basis
- Employment Rights Act 1996, s. 47B (Benachteiligung wegen geschützter Offenlegung)
- Action
- Other
- Status of proceedings
- unknown
- Sector
- Transport, logistics and shipping
- Employees
- 10,000 or more
- Published
- 7 Sep 2026
Original amount 6,978.2 GBP, converted at the ECB reference rate of 16 Jul 2026.
Checked against the official source on 25 Sep 2026 · Direct link
Report an error
8 Jul 2026 Hutchison Technologies LtdTribunal: Hutchison Technologies dismissed employee after she raised holiday pay concerns Other
An employee of the Dundee-based electrical services provider for gyms (around 140 employees) had pointed out that the technicians' holiday pay was being calculated incorrectly; a few days later her home working arrangement was withdrawn, and on 11 June 2025 she was dismissed. The Employment Tribunal upheld her claims for automatically unfair dismissal (s. 103A) and detriment (s. 47B); compensation will be decided separately.
Employers who worsen working conditions shortly after a disclosure must be able to prove a documented reason unrelated to the disclosure.
How managers handle internal reports
- Authority / court
- Employment Tribunal
- Area of law
- Whistleblower protection · Retaliation against whistleblowers
- Legal basis
- Employment Rights Act 1996, ss. 43B, 47B, 103A
- Action
- Other
- Status of proceedings
- unknown
- Sector
- Other
- Employees
- 50 to 249
- Published
- 23 Jul 2026
Checked against the official source on 25 Sep 2026 · Direct link
Report an error
3 Jun 2026 Sonus Public Relations LtdTribunal: PR agency Sonus must pay £71,052 after subjecting whistleblower to detriment €82,264
The PR agency, which did not appear, lost on all claims: detriment on grounds of whistleblowing (£20,000 for injury to feelings), wrongful termination without notice pay (£3,547.60) and constructive unfair dismissal (basic and compensatory award including a 25 % ACAS uplift). A total of £71,051.82 was awarded.
Employers who do not take part in the proceedings risk, in addition to whistleblower compensation, an uplift for failing to follow the ACAS Code of Practice.
How managers handle internal reports
- Authority / court
- Employment Tribunal
- Area of law
- Whistleblower protection · Retaliation against whistleblowers
- Legal basis
- Employment Rights Act 1996, s. 47B (Benachteiligung wegen geschützter Offenlegung); konstruktive unfaire Kündigung; wrongful dismissal
- Action
- Other
- Status of proceedings
- unknown
- Sector
- Other
- Published
- 22 Jul 2026
Original amount 71,051.82 GBP, converted at the ECB reference rate of 3 Jun 2026.
- R Ashwell v Sonus Public Relations Ltd: 2404668/2024 Court decision
- R Ashwell v Sonus Public Relations Ltd: 2404668/2024 – Urteil (PDF) Court decision
Checked against the official source on 25 Sep 2026 · Direct link
Report an error
19 May 2026 Jusan Technologies LtdTribunal: Jusan Technologies and CEO liable for withheld 600,000 US dollars Other
In August 2023, an employee had raised concerns about a possible diversion of funds earmarked for charitable purposes for self-enrichment and about breaches of duty by the CEO. The London South Employment Tribunal found that the company and its CEO personally had withheld from him, for that reason, a payment of 600,000 US dollars owed at the end of his contract (s. 47B (1) and (1A)); compensation will be determined separately.
In the United Kingdom, managers are personally liable if they subject whistleblowers to detriment – for example by withholding contractual payments.
How managers handle internal reports
- Authority / court
- Employment Tribunal
- Area of law
- Whistleblower protection · Retaliation against whistleblowers
- Legal basis
- Employment Rights Act 1996, ss. 43B, 43C, 43G, 47B(1) und (1A)
- Action
- Other
- Status of proceedings
- unknown
- Liability of senior managers
- The CEO (referred to in the judgment as the ‘controlling mind’) is personally liable under s. 47B(1A) ERA 1996 (Employment Rights Act 1996).
- Published
- 10 Jul 2026
Checked against the official source on 25 Sep 2026 · Direct link
Report an error
22 Oct 2025 Gate GourmetTribunal: Gate Gourmet files no response – £20,000 to whistleblower €23,018
Because Gate Gourmet failed to file a response to the claim despite repeated requests, the Manchester Employment Tribunal found that there had been detriment on grounds of a protected disclosure and in January 2026 awarded £15,000 for loss of earnings and £5,000 for injury to feelings. An application for reconsideration, based on an email inbox that was no longer monitored, was refused.
Correspondence from authorities and courts must go to monitored addresses – missed deadlines turn a defensible claim into a default judgment.
Managing deadlines and incoming mail in litigation
- Authority / court
- Employment Tribunal
- Area of law
- Whistleblower protection · Retaliation against whistleblowers
- Legal basis
- Employment Rights Act 1996, s. 47B (Benachteiligung wegen geschützter Offenlegung); Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024, Rule 22
- Action
- Other
- Status of proceedings
- unknown
- Sector
- Food and agriculture
- Published
- 7 Jan 2026
Original amount 20,000 GBP, converted at the ECB reference rate of 22 Oct 2025.
- Mr S Farrell v Gate Gourmet: 2401441/2024 Court decision
- Mr S Farrell v Gate Gourmet: 2401441/2024 – Urteil (PDF) Court decision
- Mr S Farrell v Gate Gourmet: 2401441/2024 – Judgment (Rule 22), 22.10.2025 Court decision
- Mr S Farrell v Gate Gourmet: 2401441/2024 – Reconsideration Court decision
Checked against the official source on 25 Sep 2026 · Direct link