Claimant v Poro Technologies Limited

The tribunal found that the principal reason for dismissal was not any of the protected disclosures. The only disclosure of which Dr Zhu was aware at the time was PD1, made 16 months before dismissal. The tribunal accepted that the claimant had not secured any business or investments as CCO, and that Dr Zhu perceived her skill set did not align with the company's needs. Mr Lee's influence and the breakdown in the relationship with Dr Zhu, rather than any protected disclosure, were the real reasons.

The tribunal found that only one incident on 10.1.22 amounted to detriment because of PD1 (Dr Zhu's churlish response), but this was out of time and there was no jurisdiction. All other alleged detriments post-dated PD1 by significant periods and the tribunal found no causal link between any protected disclosure and the treatment complained of. Dr Zhu was unaware of PD2-PD6 at any material time, so these could not have motivated his actions.

The tribunal found that the claimant did not do any protected acts. The tribunal rejected that race discrimination was raised or inferred during PD1-PD4. There was no contemporaneous documentary evidence supporting the claimant's assertion that she alleged race discrimination, and the first mention of race as a factor was in her June 2023 appeal against dismissal. The tribunal found the claimant had overstated what she said about race.

The tribunal found PD1, PD2, PD3 and PD4 were protected disclosures concerning health and safety/breach of duty of care in relation to bullying of staff. However, only PD1 was known to Dr Zhu, and the tribunal found no causal link between PD1 and any treatment after 10.1.22. PD5 failed because the claimant did not reasonably believe it was in the public interest. PD6 was not a protected disclosure as it was just a draft shared for input, not a disclosure of information.