University of Cambridge whistleblower who reported alleged bullying wins employment tribunal

Prof Wyn Evans, a University of Cambridge whistleblower, won a tribunal case against the university after alleging bullying of female staff within the Institute of Astronomy. The tribunal found that Evans was subjected to a nearly two-year investigation by the university following his protected disclosures, despite the allegations against him lacking evidence.

Tribunal Findings

• Evans raised concerns about misogyny and the treatment of female administrators at the Institute of Astronomy, including claims that one woman was "hounded out of a job," another was "left a frightened woman," and a third faced "aggressive professors."
• The tribunal concluded Evans genuinely believed there was a problem within the institute regarding the treatment of female staff.
• The university was found to have failed to properly consider Evans’s complaints under its whistleblowing policy, viewing him as a "source of difficulty and continuing reputational risk."
• The investigation into Evans was ruled "baseless," "filed in retaliation," and "likely malicious and vexatious," with 11 of 14 alleged detriments upheld against the university or individual respondents, including the vice-chancellor.
• The tribunal described the university’s handling of Evans’s complaints as "contrary to natural justice," with many concerns dismissed without proper process.
• Senior figures at Cambridge, including the vice-chancellor, were found to have relied on correspondence and processes drafted by HR or administrators, with the tribunal rejecting Prof Deborah Prentice’s evidence as largely ghostwritten.

Broader Context

The ruling comes amid scrutiny of Cambridge’s leadership, including calls for an independent inquiry into the appointment and subsequent resignation of Prof Jason Arday, the university’s youngest professor, amid allegations of plagiarism and CV embellishment.

Evans, who previously ran for the university’s chancellor position on an anti-bullying platform, stated the judgment raised questions about the vice-chancellor’s fitness for office. The university acknowledged the tribunal’s findings and stated it would review the judgment in detail. Damages are to be determined at a further hearing in January.