Claimant v Alchemy Prime Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
This was an interim relief application under s.128 ERA 1996. The tribunal refused the application, finding it was not 'likely' (approaching certainty) that the final tribunal would find the reason for dismissal was protected disclosures. The tribunal found the respondent's evidence of performance concerns and grievances provided a credible alternative explanation. The substantive claim remains to be determined.
Claimant alleged detriments for making protected disclosures to internal management (CEO, Head of Compliance) and external bodies (FCA, NCA, NFIB) regarding conflict of interest, document manipulation, financial crime prevention failures, tax fraud and suspicious activities. The tribunal assumed without deciding that protected disclosures were likely to be found. The substantive claim remains to be determined.
Facts
Ms Savoia was employed as Senior Compliance Manager from September 2024. She made disclosures internally about conflicts of interest, document manipulation, and financial crime failures, and to external regulators (FCA, NCA, NFIB). She was dismissed in March 2025 following grievances from two team members and alleged performance concerns. Recordings from January 2025 showed the Head of Compliance calling her a whistleblower and discussing plans to remove her. The decision-maker, Mr Woods (who replaced the Head of Compliance as line manager in late January), stated he dismissed her due to performance issues, confrontational behaviour, and the grievances raised against her.
Decision
The tribunal refused the interim relief application. While assuming protected disclosures were likely made, the tribunal found it was not 'likely' (approaching certainty) that the final tribunal would find these were the reason for dismissal. The respondent provided credible evidence of performance concerns and genuine grievances from subordinates. Although recordings suggested senior management viewed the claimant as a whistleblower, the tribunal could not conclude it was approaching certain that the stated reasons for dismissal were untrue or that protected disclosures were the real reason.
Practical note
Interim relief applications in whistleblowing cases require something approaching certainty that protected disclosures were the reason for dismissal - contemporaneous evidence of alternative performance-related reasons, particularly genuine grievances from colleagues, can defeat an application even where there is some evidence of animus towards the claimant as a whistleblower.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 2202077/2025
- Decision date
- 29 April 2025
- Hearing type
- interim
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- financial services
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- Senior Compliance Manager
- Service
- 6 months
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No