Case 1405915/2019 · Employment Tribunal

Mr N Hughes v Eurochange Ltd — 2021

Case reference: 1405915/2019
Decision date: 14 April 2021
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Oliver Members
Venue: Bristol
Panel members: Mr H J Launder, Ms R A Clarke

Indexed: 21 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Mr N Hughes

Respondent

Eurochange Ltd

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The claimant worked for Eurochange Ltd in Bristol from 29 March 2018 to 8 November 2019 as a Foreign Exchange Sales Advisor. In May 2019 he made three disclosures to HR and then to Debbie Burrows about alleged theft by a colleague, the handling of that issue, and a later telephone call from Mr Perritt. The tribunal held that the disclosures were information, that the claimant reasonably believed they were made in the public interest, and that they tended to show a criminal offence and possible concealment. It also held that the detriment claim was in time because there was a series of similar acts or failures ending with the appeal outcome on 1 October 2019.

Claims and outcomes

2 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Whistleblowing	Protected disclosure and detriment claim under section 47B ERA 1996. The tribunal found three protected disclosures in May 2019 and upheld the claim on the basis of Mr Perritt's 18 May 2019 call and the respondent's failure to resolve the claimant's concerns about the theft allegation and Mr Perritt's conduct. It found the confidentiality forwarding by HR was a genuine misunderstanding of process and not causally influenced by the protected disclosure.	Upheld	—	—
Constructive dismissal	Constructive dismissal claim under section 103A ERA 1996. The claimant had less than two years' service, so he had to show the protected disclosures were the principal reason for the dismissal. The tribunal found he resigned on 8 November 2019 because the matter had not been resolved, no action had been taken on the theft allegation or Mr Perritt's conduct, and the disclosures were the principal reason for the dismissal. No monetary award is set out in these reasons.	Upheld	—	—

Legal tests applied

10 references

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.

Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.

How we got this data

Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.

Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.