Mrs A Amos- Osebeyo v Crystal Blockchain UK Ltd and 2 others — 2025

At this preliminary hearing the tribunal refused the claimant’s 22 October 2024 amendment application under the Selkent/Chaudhry/Vaughan approach. It held that allowing the proposed new whistleblowing detriment allegations would substantially expand the factual and legal issues, require a further postponement of the final hearing, and effectively restart disclosure and hearing preparation, whereas refusing the amendment left the claimant able to pursue the claims already in issue.

The tribunal held that the claims against R2 had been unequivocally withdrawn. It found that the withdrawal brought those claims to an end under rule 51 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013, and that they were dismissed on withdrawal under rule 52. It also held that the race and sex discrimination claims against R2 and R3 had been withdrawn or effectively withdrawn when the claimant said she was pursuing those claims only against R1, and they could not be revived by amendment.

As to R3, the tribunal struck out the proposed claim that it aided or abetted the whistleblowing dismissal or detriment claim, concluding that there was no legal route by which liability could attach on the case as pleaded. It also dismissed R3’s costs application. The final hearing remained listed for 4 to 7 August 2025.

On R1’s automatic unfair dismissal claim under s103A ERA 1996, the tribunal struck out four of the five alleged protected disclosures: the 6 June 2023 valuation email, the 11 July 2023 tax posting email, the 13 July 2023 valuation email, and the Bitgo/Fireblocks issue between 12 and 18 July 2023. It held that the 18 July 2023 email to legal counsel about a vendor invoice with an Israeli address, and the claimant’s statement that for tax reporting purposes the location and address must match, remained capable of amounting to a protected disclosure. The dismissal claim therefore proceeds only in relation to that disclosure.