Claimant v Crystal Blockchain UK Ltd
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal struck out four of the five alleged protected disclosures as having no reasonable prospect of success (disclosures relating to valuation issues, group tax allocation, and wallet custodian). However, one disclosure (PID 4, relating to tax reporting obligations on vendor invoices with mismatched addresses) was held to be arguable and permitted to proceed to final hearing.
This claim against R1 remains to be determined at the final hearing listed for August 2025. The claimant's application to amend to bring race discrimination claims against R2 and R3 was refused.
This claim against R1 remains to be determined at the final hearing listed for August 2025. The claimant's application to amend to bring sex discrimination claims against R2 and R3 was refused.
The claimant's application to amend to add whistleblowing detriment claims against all three respondents was dismissed. The tribunal found the application was made too late, after the claimant had confirmed she was only pursuing dismissal claims, and would cause significant prejudice to the respondents.
Facts
The claimant, a senior finance officer, was dismissed by R1 on 18 July 2023. She brought claims of automatic unfair dismissal for whistleblowing, and race and sex discrimination against three respondents: her employer R1, the CEO R2, and parent company R3. The claimant alleged five protected disclosures relating to financial irregularities including company valuation issues, group tax allocation, vendor invoice tax compliance, and wallet custodian selection. The claimant initially withdrew claims against R2 and limited claims against R3, but later sought to amend extensively to add multiple whistleblowing detriment claims against all respondents.
Decision
This was a preliminary hearing to determine strike-out and amendment applications. The tribunal dismissed the claimant's amendment application to add whistleblowing detriment claims as too late and prejudicial. R2 was dismissed as a respondent following unequivocal withdrawal. Four of five alleged protected disclosures were struck out as having no reasonable prospect of success because they did not contain the disclosures alleged or showed no breach of legal obligation. One disclosure (regarding vendor tax reporting) was permitted to proceed. R3 was dismissed as it could not be liable for dismissal and the aiding/abetting claim was struck out. The case will proceed to final hearing on one protected disclosure and discrimination claims against R1 only.
Practical note
Employment lawyers should note that in whistleblowing cases, the content of alleged protected disclosures will be scrutinised closely at preliminary hearings, and claims can be struck out where emails do not factually contain the disclosures alleged or do not demonstrate reasonable belief in a legal breach, particularly where they constitute professional disagreements between colleagues rather than disclosure of wrongdoing.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 1400251/2024
- Decision date
- 27 January 2025
- Hearing type
- preliminary
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- technology
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- Finance officer / CFO
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No