Argence-Lafon v Ark Syndicate Management

Argence-Lafon v Ark Syndicate Management [2025] EAT 124

Facts

The case involves Mr O Argence-Lafon (Appellant, claimant) and Ark Syndicate Management Limited (Respondent, employer). Mr Argence-Lafon was a Senior Underwriter whose employment transferred to the respondent on 1 May 2018.

In July 2019, an Italian company, ENI, submitted an insurance claim for an "underground blowout" while drilling a well. In November 2019, after a presentation by ENI and Willis Towers Watson, Mr Argence-Lafon expressed concerns to his line managers, Mr Burton and Mr Dawson, that the claim was likely not valid and not covered, implicitly suggesting it was fraudulent. These concerns, shared with Mr Burton and colleagues, then Mr Dawson, were asserted to be the first and second protected disclosures (D1 and D2).

Ongoing Investigations & Disclosures

Mr Argence-Lafon continued to raise concerns, conducting his own research and discussing the matter with drilling engineers. In May 2020, he sent an email to Ms Fenner, Senior Energy Claims Adjuster, and Mr Burton, suggesting that if other possibilities for the incident existed, the loss adjusters (Matthews Daniel) might have "willingly not challenged the facts," which he believed could be explained by "corporate issues" and would have "serious consequences". This was asserted to be the third protected disclosure (D3).

• Meetings with Matthews, Daniel, and a second loss adjuster (Lloyd Warwick International) took place, both concluding that a cross-flow had occurred, supporting the claim.

• Mr Argence-Lafon continued to challenge these findings, stating he was "convinced this is not a valid claim" (D4) and later linking it to an article about ENI's alleged corruption in Nigeria (D5).

• In April and May 2021, Mr Argence-Lafon again raised concerns about the claim being fraudulent directly with the respondent's CEO, Mr Beaton (D6 and D7), providing a document outlining his reasons.

• Performance Issues & Detriments

  • In November 2020, Mr Argence-Lafon set three personal objectives related to risk count, submission count, and premium written (Det 1), which were significantly higher than his previous year's performance. He reluctantly agreed to them.

  • After failing to meet these objectives in early 2021, he was informed in March 2021 that he would be subject to a formal performance review. He was put on a Performance Improvement Plan (PIP) in May 2021 (Det 2).

• Dismissal

  Mr Argence-Lafon was invited to a disciplinary hearing in July 2021 and was dismissed with immediate effect on 9 August 2021 by Mr Beaton. The stated reasons were a "complete breakdown of trust and confidence" due to his allegations of fraud against his managers and the company, and his failure to engage with the PIP process and agree on measurable objectives.

• Internal Appeal

  Mr Argence-Lafon appealed his dismissal, arguing it was unfair and linked to his protected disclosures. The appeal was dismissed on 27 August 2021, with the appeal officer, Mr Atkin, also concluding that a "fundamental breach of trust and confidence" had occurred and that agreeing objectives was impossible.

Held

• Employment Tribunal (ET) Judgment

  • Protected Disclosures

    The ET found that D1, D2, and D3 were protected disclosures because Mr Argence-Lafon reasonably believed the information disclosed tended to show wrongdoing (a criminal offence by ENI or a breach of legal obligation by the respondent) and was made in the public interest. However, D4, D5, D6, and D7 were not protected disclosures, as his belief that they showed wrongdoing was deemed unreasonable given the expert opinions, and for D6 and D7, he was also found not to have genuinely believed the disclosure was in the public interest.

  • Detriments

    The ET found that the setting of objectives (Det 1) and being placed on a PIP (Det 2) constituted detriments. However, it concluded that these detriments were not made because Mr Argence-Lafon had made protected disclosures D1, D2, or D3. Instead, they were linked to frustration with his conduct after the disclosures – his unwillingness to accept expert conclusions and his focus away from his job.

  • Dismissal

    The ET determined that the reason, or principal reason, for dismissal was not the making of protected disclosures D1, D2, or D3. The reasons were his failure to engage with the PIP and his allegations of complicity in fraud, leading to a breakdown of trust and confidence.

  • Unfair Dismissal (Procedural)

    The ET found the dismissal to be unfair due to procedural failings by the employer. Specifically, there was no investigation into the appropriateness of the objectives for the PIP, and Mr Argence-Lafon was not given advance notice that a breakdown of trust and confidence would be considered at the disciplinary hearing.

  • Reconsideration

    Mr Argence-Lafon's application for reconsideration was refused by the Employment Judge, who found no reasonable prospect of varying the original decision.

• Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) Judgment

  • The EAT upheld the ET's findings that the ET did not err in law in its analysis of protected disclosures, or in holding that the two detriments were not made on the grounds of protected disclosures, and that the principal reason for dismissal was not the making of protected disclosures.

  • The EAT found that the Employment Tribunal erred in law by not analysing the appeal process when considering the fairness of the claimant’s dismissal.

  • The EAT determined that there was no error of law in the rejection of the reconsideration application.

  • The EAT concluded that it could not be said there was only one answer to the question of whether the dismissal was fair once the appeal was considered, and therefore, the case should be remitted for reconsideration of the fairness of the dismissal, potentially to a different Employment Judge if the original judge has retired.

Comment

The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) reinforced its role as a court of law, not fact, emphasising the high bar for challenging factual findings from the Employment Tribunal (ET). The EAT meticulously reviewed all 15 "topics" raised by Mr Argence-Lafon in his appeal, which largely contested the ET's factual determinations regarding his disclosures, the employer's motivations, and the expert evidence.

Crucially, the EAT found no error of law in the ET's assessment that Mr Argence-Lafon's later disclosures (D4-D7) were not reasonably believed to show wrongdoing, given that multiple drilling experts and adjusters had confirmed the claim's validity. Similarly, the EAT upheld the ET's conclusion that the employer's decisions regarding detriments and dismissal were driven by Mr Argence-Lafon's conduct (his unwillingness to accept expert conclusions and his subsequent disengagement from his job duties and the PIP process), rather than being influenced by his protected disclosures (D1-D3). The ET's finding that the employer initially supported and investigated his concerns was a key factor in this conclusion.

The most significant aspect of the EAT's decision was its finding of an error of law in the ET's analysis of the fairness of the dismissal. While the ET correctly identified procedural flaws at the initial dismissal stage (lack of investigation into objectives, no advance notice of the trust and confidence issue), it failed to consider the internal appeal process in its overall assessment of fairness. The EAT highlighted that an appeal process could potentially remedy deficiencies in the initial disciplinary decision, especially since Mr Argence-Lafon had the opportunity to address the "breakdown of trust and confidence" during his appeal, and the appeal outcome explicitly upheld this finding. This oversight meant the ET did not assess the "whole of the disciplinary process" as required by law. Therefore, the EAT remitted the case for a fresh determination of the fairness of the dismissal, taking the appeal process into account.