Claimant v Wells Fargo Bank National Association
Outcome
Individual claims
This was a preliminary hearing to determine the claimant's application for interim relief under s.103A ERA (whistleblowing dismissal). The tribunal concluded that the claimant did not have a 'pretty good chance' of succeeding at trial. While the claimant made numerous alleged protected disclosures, the tribunal was not satisfied that Ms Mitchell (the decision maker) had knowledge of those disclosures before signing off the redundancy business case, and was not satisfied that the Second Redundancy Process was a sham. The substantive claim was not determined and will proceed to full merits hearing.
The claimant claimed automatic unfair dismissal on the ground that the principal reason for his dismissal was that he made protected disclosures (s.103A ERA). The tribunal at the interim relief stage found that while the claimant may succeed at trial, he did not meet the higher threshold of 'likely' to succeed required for interim relief. The tribunal could not conclude on the evidence that the protected disclosures were the principal reason for dismissal, especially given timing issues and disputed questions of knowledge and causation.
Facts
The claimant was employed as Lead Compliance Officer by Wells Fargo from January 2023 until dismissal for redundancy on 1 April 2025. Between March 2023 and February 2025, he made numerous alleged protected disclosures relating to market abuse surveillance. He had brought two prior whistleblowing tribunal claims. Following two redundancy consultation processes, the claimant was dismissed in the Second Redundancy Process, which resulted in six redundancies globally. The claimant informed the decision maker, Ms Mitchell, that he was a whistleblower the day after the business case for redundancy was approved.
Decision
The tribunal denied the claimant's application for interim relief under s.103A ERA. While the claimant may succeed at full hearing, the tribunal was not satisfied he had a 'pretty good chance' of proving the protected disclosures were the principal reason for dismissal. The tribunal found insufficient evidence that Ms Mitchell (the decision maker) had knowledge of the disclosures before approving the redundancy, and was not satisfied the redundancy process was a sham. The tribunal also denied the respondent's application for a deposit order, finding the claim had reasonable prospects of success requiring factual determination at trial.
Practical note
Interim relief applications in whistleblowing dismissal cases require a high threshold: claimants must show significantly better than evens chance of proving the disclosure was the principal reason for dismissal, which is difficult where the decision maker's knowledge of disclosures is disputed and a genuine redundancy process is documented.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 6011690/2025
- Decision date
- 20 May 2025
- Hearing type
- preliminary
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- financial services
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- Lead Compliance Officer
- Service
- 2 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister