Claimant v Intesa Sanpaolo S.P.A.
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found the claimant was unlikely to succeed because: (1) it was unclear whether the claimant had been dismissed given he was still being paid and had a role in Italy; (2) there was little evidence he made public interest disclosures, as his complaints were mainly of a private nature regarding salary, visa and promises made to him; (3) even if there were disclosures, causation was complicated by the claimant's history of prior complaints while in Italy, suggesting relationship breakdown rather than whistleblowing as the reason for ending the secondment.
The tribunal found little evidence of public interest disclosures in the documents referred to. The claimant's complaints at meetings on 24 May 2024 and memo of 26 May 2024 appeared mainly to concern private matters such as his economic package, salary promises, family visa issues, and team management confusion, rather than information disclosed in the public interest about legal breaches or regulatory issues.
Facts
The claimant was employed by the Italian parent company from July 2019 and was seconded to the UK subsidiary from October 2023 under a fixed-term secondment agreement until September 2025, with an early termination clause. He alleged he was promised a higher salary and assistance with his mother's visa, which were not fulfilled. He raised concerns in May 2024 about his economic package, team management issues and operational risks. The respondent ended his secondment and requested his return to Italy in September 2024, citing business need and relationship breakdown. At the time of the interim relief hearing in March 2025, the claimant was still being paid.
Decision
The tribunal refused the application for interim relief. The judge found the claimant was unlikely to succeed at a full hearing because: (1) it was unclear whether he had been dismissed given he was still employed and had a role in Italy; (2) there was insufficient evidence of public interest disclosures, as his complaints appeared to be of a private nature regarding salary and personal promises; and (3) causation was unclear given his history of prior complaints while in Italy.
Practical note
For interim relief in whistleblowing dismissal claims, claimants must show it is likely they will establish: (1) a dismissal has occurred; (2) protected disclosures were made in the public interest; and (3) a clear causal connection between the disclosure and the dismissal — all of which must be 'likely to succeed' at trial.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 6020568/2024
- Decision date
- 20 March 2025
- Hearing type
- interim relief
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- financial services
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No