Claimant v InvestCloud Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
Tribunal found dismissal was for redundancy (a potentially fair reason) but Respondent failed to consult at a formative stage and failed to conduct fair selection process for the potentially suitable alternative role of Head of APL Sales. The consultation in January 2024 was too late to be meaningful; effective decisions had been made by December 2023. This was outside the band of reasonable responses.
Tribunal found Claimant made some protected disclosures (PD2, PD3, PD4) but that the protected disclosures played no part in the reason for dismissal. The dismissal was because Respondent decided to stop work on Marketplace, not because of the disclosures. Senior decision-makers (Lumb and Bellini) were either unaware of the disclosures or considered their content unremarkable and already widely known.
Tribunal found one detriment established on facts (failure to consult at formative stage) but not done on ground of protected disclosures. Other alleged detriments either not established on facts or, if established, shown by Respondent not to be because of protected disclosures. Ms Bellini's negative view of Claimant was based on her genuine assessment of his capabilities, not his disclosures. Decisions driven by poor financial position and doubts about Marketplace viability.
Facts
Claimant was Executive VP Business Development at a US-headquartered fintech company, working on a digital product called Marketplace and managing key client relationships. He raised concerns internally about the company having mis-sold products it could not deliver to major client Rathbones and about staff health suffering. In 2023 new senior leadership (Lumb and Bellini) concluded Marketplace was unviable and the company was losing money. Claimant was not appointed to a new Head of APL Sales role in late 2023. In January 2024 the company discontinued Marketplace and dismissed Claimant and two US-based Marketplace colleagues for redundancy, after a brief two-week consultation.
Decision
Tribunal found dismissal was for redundancy (a potentially fair reason) but unfair due to failure to consult at formative stage and failure to conduct fair selection for the one potentially suitable alternative role (Head of APL Sales). Whistleblowing claims failed: some protected disclosures were made but they played no part in the dismissal or alleged detriments. Senior decision-makers were unaware of or indifferent to the disclosures; decisions driven by financial pressures and doubts about Marketplace. 50% Polkey reduction applied as Claimant may not have been selected for APL role even with fair process. Further 10% reduction for minor breach of confidentiality clause.
Practical note
Even where protected disclosures are established, whistleblowing claims will fail if the decision-makers were unaware of them or the disclosures played no part in their reasoning; redundancy dismissals require meaningful consultation before key restructuring decisions are finalised, not merely formal consultation after the fact.
Adjustments
Tribunal found 50% likelihood Claimant would have been dismissed fairly for redundancy in any event, following a fair selection process for the Head of APL Sales role. Factors were finely balanced; Claimant had not impressed Ms Bellini but had some strong sales achievements; Mr Pollak had little objective evidence of strong performance in 2023.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 6003766/2024
- Decision date
- 28 August 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 9
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- technology
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- Executive Vice President Business Development
- Service
- 3 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No