In the complex world of business operations—particularly within public projects or regulated sectors—whistleblowing is often misunderstood. While it can raise red flags and trigger uncomfortable scrutiny, whistleblowing isn’t inherently negative. In fact, when handled correctly, it serves as a powerful tool for transparency and accountability. However, when ignored, mishandled, or punished, the consequences can be severe—legally, financially, and reputationally.

The recent £320,000 employment tribunal award to Stephen Cresswell, a former HS2 project risk specialist, highlights just how costly those consequences can be.

According to recent reports, Cresswell claimed that his contract with HS2 was not renewed in 2022 after he repeatedly raised concerns that the project’s costs were being “actively misrepresented.” The tribunal, held in Croydon, accepted that he had made protected disclosures under the Public Interest Disclosure Act (PIDA), and that his treatment by HS2 constituted whistleblower retaliation.

The tribunal’s decision to award him nearly £320,000 in compensation not only vindicates Cresswell’s stance—it sends a wider message across the UK business landscape: ignore whistleblowing protections at your peril.

It’s easy to see stories like this as relevant only to vast public infrastructure projects and billion-pound budgets. But as Simon Gilmour, Partner and Head of Employment Law at Harper James, warns, the implications run far deeper.

“The recent £320,000 employment tribunal award to Stephen Cresswell, a former HS2 whistleblower whose contract was not renewed after raising concerns about cost misrepresentation, serves as a wake-up call for employers of all sizes,” says Gilmour. “This case demonstrates that even large organisations with resources can fall foul of complex whistleblowing legislation.”

And if a major organisation like HS2—with its dedicated legal teams and HR infrastructure—can get it wrong, then the risks for SMEs, often operating with leaner structures and informal cultures, are even higher.

“For smaller businesses, such an award could prove financially devastating,” Gilmour adds. “Employers need to recognise that informal business cultures and resource constraints provide no legal excuse for mishandling whistleblowing cases.”

Whistleblowing occurs when a worker reports certain types of wrongdoing, usually related to unlawful, unethical, or dangerous practices within a business. Under UK law, whistleblowers are protected if their disclosure is made in the public interest and concerns matters such as criminal activity, environmental damage, or breaches of legal obligations.

The law is clear: whistleblowers must not be subjected to detriment or dismissal as a result of making protected disclosures. That includes changes in contract, pay, working conditions—or, as in Cresswell’s case, a non-renewal of contract that can be linked to their disclosure.

Whistleblowing is often viewed as an act of disloyalty or internal sabotage. This outdated mindset needs to be replaced with a more mature, compliance-oriented culture — especially in growing businesses facing increasing regulatory exposure.

Gilmour advises: “Essential protective measures include implementing clear written whistleblowing policies communicated during induction, training managers on their obligations when concerns are raised, and conducting thorough reviews before making any employment decisions affecting whistleblowers.”

At a minimum, businesses should:

• Have a clear, written whistleblowing policy that explains how concerns can be raised internally, who will handle them, and how confidentiality will be maintained.
• Train managers and team leaders to recognise when a concern qualifies as a protected disclosure—and what to do next.
• Record and investigate disclosures properly, maintaining impartiality and documenting each step.
• Avoid retaliatory behaviour, even unintentionally. Decisions related to performance, role changes, or contract renewals must be backed by clear, unrelated evidence.

Financially, tribunal awards can run into hundreds of thousands of pounds—more than many SMEs can afford. But the damage doesn’t end there. Mishandling a whistleblowing case can also lead to:

• Public reputational harm, especially in today’s digital age where tribunal decisions are publicly accessible and often covered by the press.
• Internal disruption, as the morale of employees, who watch how concerns are treated, can decline rapidly.
• Regulatory attention, particularly if the whistleblower’s concerns relate to legal compliance, tax, financial reporting, or health and safety.

These risks make a compelling business case for you to review your approach.

Regardless of size, every employer should view whistleblowing policies not as a box-ticking exercise but as a critical tool for maintaining ethical and legal integrity within the business. More importantly, they must ensure those policies are understood and used, not left forgotten in an employee handbook.

“For SMEs operating with tighter margins, seeking early legal advice when whistleblowing concerns arise is not just prudent but essential,” Gilmour concludes. “It’s the difference between addressing a concern proactively and defending a costly tribunal claim you didn’t see coming.”

When managed well, whistleblowing can be a sign of a healthy organisation — one where employees feel safe to raise concerns, and leaders value transparency over image. It may sometimes feel uncomfortable, but a business that listens and responds appropriately will always be stronger for it.

In today’s climate, where scrutiny from regulators, media, and consumers is intensifying, the message is clear: whistleblowing is not the problem. Failing to act on it is.