Claimant v Crezco Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
This was a preliminary hearing on strike-out/deposit applications only. The unfair dismissal claim remains live and will proceed to full merits hearing.
Automatic unfair dismissal for whistleblowing was not struck out or subject to deposit. The tribunal found the protected disclosures were sufficiently pleaded and arguable to proceed to full hearing.
The respondents sought to strike out or order deposits on protected disclosures 1-4, 6 and 9. The tribunal refused all applications, finding each disclosure was sufficiently particularised, contained information (not just allegations), and the claimant's reasonable belief in public interest was arguable.
The respondents argued no valid comparator was identified. The tribunal allowed amendment to clarify the hypothetical comparator as a person younger than 40 or 50. Given age-related remarks about wanting a 'young team' and the claimant being nearly 60, there was a strong arguable case requiring no strike out or deposit.
Victimisation claim was not struck out. The tribunal found it arguable that protected acts were established and that detrimental treatment was connected to whistleblowing. Matter to proceed to full hearing.
Facts
The claimant, aged nearly 60, worked in financial services for Crezco Limited. He made multiple protected disclosures between April and May 2023 regarding alleged breaches of financial regulations, KYC checks, and misleading disclosures to the FCA and insurers. The claimant alleged he was then subjected to detrimental treatment and dismissal. He also alleged age discrimination based on remarks about wanting a 'young team' and references to him being a 'sexagenarian'. Multiple respondents were involved including directors and investment entities connected to the company.
Decision
The tribunal refused all applications to strike out or order deposits on the whistleblowing claims, age discrimination claim, and claims against the individual respondents R3 and R5. The judge found that the protected disclosures were sufficiently particularised, contained information (not just allegations), and the claimant's belief in public interest was arguable. The age discrimination claim based on inherently age-related remarks was sufficiently pleaded and strongly arguable. All matters to proceed to full merits hearing.
Practical note
At preliminary hearings, tribunals will apply a very high threshold before striking out whistleblowing or discrimination claims — even where particulars could be clearer, the test is whether there is no reasonable prospect of success, and fact-sensitive matters involving credibility and inference should almost always proceed to full hearing.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 2216628/2023
- Decision date
- 18 December 2025
- Hearing type
- preliminary
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Name
- Crezco Limited
- Sector
- financial services
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Claimant representation
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister