An insurance underwriter who claimed he was sacked for exposing a fraudulent oil drilling claim has lost his whistleblowing case, but succeeded in showing that his dismissal was procedurally unfair.
The Employment Appeal Tribunal has upheld a ruling that Mr Olivier Argence-Lafon, formerly of Ark Syndicate Management Ltd, was not dismissed for making protected disclosures under whistleblowing laws, but that his employer failed to follow a fair process when terminating his employment.
Mr Argence-Lafon, who was employed as a senior underwriter in Ark’s Lloyd’s syndicate, had repeatedly challenged a multi-million insurance claim submitted by the Italian oil company ENI. The claim related to an alleged underground blowout at the Ken Bau-1X oil well in Vietnam, which was covered by a policy underwritten by a consortium including Ark and led by Zurich Insurance.
The tribunal heard that Mr Argence-Lafon questioned the legitimacy of the claim from as early as November 2019, suggesting to colleagues that it was likely fraudulent and that Ark could be in breach of its legal obligations if it paid out without further scrutiny. These initial objections were accepted as protected disclosures under the Employment Rights Act 1996.
“Based on the information provided, I am convinced this is not a valid claim,” Argence-Lafon said in a September 2020 internal email.
His managers initially responded supportively, arranging meetings with loss adjusters and commissioning a second opinion from another firm. Both sets of adjusters concluded that the blowout had occurred. But Mr Argence-Lafon remained unconvinced and continued to question the conclusions, even producing his own technical report.
In 2021, amid concerns over his performance, Ark placed Mr Argence-Lafon on a formal performance improvement plan. Shortly after, he renewed his allegations, accusing colleagues and external experts of complicity in fraud. The company dismissed him later that year, citing a breakdown in trust and his refusal to engage meaningfully with the improvement plan.
He brought claims of whistleblowing detriment, automatic unfair dismissal, and ordinary unfair dismissal. The Employment Tribunal ruled that while some of his disclosures were protected, they were not the reason for his dismissal. However, it found that Ark had failed to give him proper notice that the issue of “breakdown of trust” would form part of the disciplinary hearing, and had not properly examined whether performance targets were reasonable in context.
Mr Argence-Lafon appealed, arguing the tribunal had misunderstood the technical evidence and ignored key parts of his case. The appeal was dismissed.
In a partial win for Ark, the Employment Appeal Tribunal allowed the company’s cross-appeal on a procedural point. It ruled that the Employment Tribunal had erred in failing to assess whether the internal appeal process had remedied the initial unfairness of the dismissal. That issue has been sent back for reconsideration.
The case underlines the legal threshold for whistleblowing protection. Disclosures must be made in the public interest, based on reasonable belief, and must genuinely influence the employer’s treatment of the employee to found a claim.
Mr Argence-Lafon represented himself. Ark Syndicate was represented by Nicholas M Siddall KC, instructed by Morgan, Lewis & Bockius UK LLP.
