Claimant v Pay Perform Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
This was an interim relief application under s.128 ERA 1996 for automatic unfair dismissal for whistleblowing (s.103A). The tribunal refused the application, finding that although the claimant raised serious concerns about potential criminal conduct regarding the Indian operation, the causation issue was unclear. The tribunal could not conclude on a broad-brush assessment that there was a 'pretty good chance' the dismissal was principally because of the disclosures rather than the breakdown in working relations, the manner of raising concerns, or the claimant's resignation as director and subsequent erratic communications. Full merits hearing required.
The claimant made multiple disclosures from 21 May 2023 onwards concerning risks of money laundering and criminal enforcement action against the Indian subsidiary (PPIPL) following a raid by the Indian Enforcement Department. The tribunal accepted these were likely protected disclosures about potential criminal conduct, made in reasonable belief and in the public interest. However, the application for interim relief failed on causation - whether dismissal was because of the disclosures themselves or the manner/context in which they were raised.
Facts
The claimant was a co-founder, director and Chief Risk Officer of a fintech company. Following a raid by Indian authorities on their Indian subsidiary in February 2023 investigating money laundering, he raised concerns about criminal risks and advocated closing the Indian operation. Relations with the CEO (second respondent) broke down. He resigned as director in May 2023 but remained an employee. He made multiple disclosures about money laundering risks, was placed on garden leave, raised a grievance about being pushed out, and was ultimately dismissed on 27 December 2023 for 'some other substantial reason' - breakdown in working relationships.
Decision
The tribunal refused the application for interim relief under s.128 ERA 1996. While accepting the claimant likely made protected disclosures about potential criminal conduct, the tribunal could not conclude on a broad-brush assessment that there was a 'pretty good chance' the dismissal was principally because of those disclosures rather than the manner of raising them, his erratic communications, his resignation as director, or the genuine breakdown in working relations. The causation issue requires full examination of evidence at final hearing.
Practical note
In interim relief applications, even where protected disclosures are clearly established, causation remains determinative - tribunals will refuse relief where the reason for dismissal (manner of disclosure vs substance, or breakdown in relations vs whistleblowing) cannot be determined on an impressionistic assessment and requires weighing of detailed evidence.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 2305132/2023
- Decision date
- 1 February 2024
- Hearing type
- interim relief
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- procedural
Respondent
- Sector
- financial services
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- Chief Risk Officer and Head of Operations
- Salary band
- £100,000+
- Service
- 6 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister