Claimant v Dalrada Financial Corporation

The claimant resigned giving three months' notice. The respondent served counter-notice terminating employment within two weeks. The claimant was entitled to 12 weeks' statutory notice given his length of service. The respondent only gave two weeks, breaching the statutory minimum notice requirement. This amounted to wrongful dismissal for which the claimant is entitled to compensation for the 10-week shortfall.

The tribunal found that while there were difficulties in relationships and DFC did not properly address the claimant's concerns regarding financial transactions, the claimant resigned primarily because he wanted more control over operations of the company he had previously owned. The claimant indicated he could continue to work for DFC on certain terms, which was inconsistent with a fundamental breakdown in trust and confidence. The resignation did not demonstrate an irretrievable breakdown in the employment relationship.

The tribunal concluded that the claimant resigned from his employment and was then dismissed by counter-notice. However, the tribunal found this was not an unfair dismissal as the reason was not a potentially fair reason under the Employment Rights Act, but rather arose from the claimant's resignation and the respondent's decision to shorten the notice period.

While the claimant made protected disclosures and these were part of the fracturing of relationships between the claimant and the respondent, the tribunal concluded this was not the principal or operative reason for dismissal. The principal reason was that the claimant wanted to renegotiate his role with the respondent to regain control over the subsidiary company. The protected disclosures were part of the overall picture but not the main cause.

The tribunal found the claimant made multiple protected disclosures between December 2023 and September 2024 regarding financial malpractice, market manipulation, and improper accounting practices relating to transactions with Apclen and Moroccan companies. The claimant had a genuine and reasonable belief that unlawful conduct had occurred and that he was acting in the public interest. Documentary evidence supported his concerns, including an altered shipping document. The disclosures were made to his employer, audit committee, HR, external counsel, the SEC, and auditors.

The tribunal found that most alleged detriments failed, including: stress (a consequence not a detriment), non-appointment to board (caused by employment termination not disclosures), correspondence from agents (normal litigation conduct), requests to sign restrictive covenants (legitimate business protection), alleged false statements (insufficient evidence), and dismissal of wife and son (not a detriment in the employment field). However, the tribunal found that the raising of a lawsuit against the claimant in California was a detriment materially related to his protected disclosures, particularly to auditors. The investigations into his concerns were never properly concluded and the action was raised at least in part to prevent him continuing to make allegations.