Cases3200777/2024

Claimant v M Three Corporate Consulting Ltd

20 November 2025Before Employment Judge MassarellaEast Londonhybrid

Outcome

Claimant fails

Individual claims

Automatic Unfair Dismissalfailed

The tribunal found that the claimant did not make qualifying disclosures (whistleblowing). The alleged disclosures lacked sufficient specificity, contemporaneous evidence was absent, and the claimant's account was found to be implausible and inconsistent with contemporaneous messages showing enthusiasm for work in Dubai. The tribunal concluded the claimant travelled to Dubai knowing he had no work visa and that he did not disclose breaches of UAE labour law in the public interest.

Facts

The claimant, a senior instructor in banking services, was sent to Dubai by the respondent in November 2023 to deliver training to the Emirates Institute of Finance. He travelled on his Colombian passport as a tourist, knowing he had no work visa. After a first training cohort, when a second cohort was offered, discussions took place about obtaining a work visa and the respondent paid for a Gold Visa application. The claimant later alleged he made protected disclosures to the respondent about breaches of UAE labour law.

Decision

The tribunal dismissed the claim. It found the claimant had not made qualifying protected disclosures. His alleged disclosures lacked specificity and contemporaneous evidence. The tribunal found the claimant knew from the outset he had no work visa, agreed to travel anyway, and later sought to regularise his position only when offered further work. The tribunal found both parties had cut corners but that the claimant's account was implausible and self-serving.

Practical note

A whistleblowing claim will fail where the alleged disclosures lack contemporaneous evidence, factual specificity, and where the claimant's account is inconsistent with contemporaneous communications showing consent to the arrangement complained of.

Legal authorities cited

Leclerc v Amtac Certification Ltd UKEAT/0244/19Twist DX Ltd v Armes UKEAT/0030/20Williams v Michelle Brown AM UKEAT/0044/19Kilraine v London Borough of Wandsworth [2018] ICR 1850Kraus v Penna plc [2004] IRLR 260Chesterton Global Ltd v Nurmohamed [2018] ICR 731

Statutes

ERA 1996 s.43CERA 1996 s.43B

Case details

Case number
3200777/2024
Decision date
20 November 2025
Hearing type
full merits
Hearing days
5
Classification
contested

Respondent

Sector
professional services
Represented
Yes
Rep type
barrister

Employment details

Role
Senior Instructor in the Banking Services division

Claimant representation

Represented
No