Cases6012309/2025

Claimant v Diamed London Clinic Ltd

20 June 2025Before Employment Judge S MooreBury St Edmundsremote video

Outcome

Claimant succeeds£4,361

Individual claims

Whistleblowingnot determined

Interim relief application succeeded. Tribunal found it likely that claimant made protected disclosures regarding immigration fraud, unlicensed treatments, GDPR breaches, lack of DBS checks, cash-in-hand payments, failure to enrol in pension scheme, and other regulatory non-compliance, and that dismissal was likely for that reason rather than alleged misconduct.

Facts

Claimant employed as Practice Manager from December 2024 at healthcare clinic. Between January and March 2025, he raised multiple concerns about unlawful practices including use of unlicensed treatments, immigration violations (using individuals on tourist visas to perform procedures), lack of DBS checks, GDPR breaches, cash-in-hand payments, and failure to provide workplace pension. He resigned in March 2025 citing ethical concerns but withdrew resignation at employer's request. Employer dismissed him on notice on 20 March 2025, then summarily dismissed him for alleged gross misconduct on 3 April 2025, less than 90 minutes after claimant sent a letter reiterating his concerns.

Decision

Tribunal granted interim relief, finding it likely that claimant made protected disclosures with sufficient factual content regarding serious regulatory breaches and criminal offences, and that the principal reason for dismissal was those disclosures rather than the misconduct alleged by the respondent. The timing of the summary dismissal and lack of prior warning supported this conclusion. Contract of employment ordered to continue pending full hearing.

Practical note

Interim relief will be granted where there is strong proximity between protected disclosures and dismissal, particularly where employer's stated reason appears pretextual and unsupported by evidence, even at the early expeditious summary assessment stage.

Award breakdown

Arrears of pay£4,361

Award equivalent: 7.1 weeks' gross pay

Legal authorities cited

Kilraine v London Borough of Wandsworth [2018] ICR 1850Taplin v C Shippam Ltd [1978] ICR 1068Ministry of Justice v Sarfraz [2011] IRLR 562London City Airport Ltd v Chacko [2013] IRLR 610Cavendish Munro Professional Risks Management Ltd v Geduld [2010] ICR 325

Statutes

ERA 1996 s.103AERA 1996 s.43AERA 1996 s.43CERA 1996 s.43BPensions Act 2008ERA 1996 s.128ERA 1996 s.130

Case details

Case number
6012309/2025
Decision date
20 June 2025
Hearing type
interim
Hearing days
1
Classification
contested

Respondent

Sector
healthcare
Represented
Yes
Rep type
solicitor

Employment details

Role
Practice Manager
Salary band
£30,000–£40,000
Service
4 months

Claimant representation

Represented
No