Case 1600917/2017 · Employment Tribunal
Ms A. Williams v Remsdaq Ltd and 3 others — 2019
- Case reference
- 1600917/2017
- Decision date
- 22 January 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge T Vincent Ryan
- Panel members
- Mr R.A Mead, Mrs L. Owen
Parties
5 namedClaimant
Ms A. Williams
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMs A. Williams made written disclosures to R2 on 21 February 2017 and 29 March 2017 about matters she said tended to show criminal offences and failures relating to fiduciary duties to minority shareholders and accounting to HMRC. By majority, the tribunal found that she did not make those disclosures in the public interest, or with a reasonable belief that they were in the public interest, but did so to assist Mr C. Williams in litigation against R1; Mr Mead dissented in part on that point.
The tribunal held that the respondents did not subject the claimant to detriment because of the disclosures. Nine specific detriment allegations were withdrawn and dismissed on withdrawal, and five allegations remained actively pursued, including denial of access to IT systems and premises, accusations that she acted outside her authority, suspension from work, and disciplinary proceedings. The protected-disclosure detriment claim was therefore dismissed.
The automatic unfair dismissal claim also failed. The tribunal found that R1 dismissed the claimant on 2 November 2017 for a reason related to her conduct and that the principal reason was not the making of the disclosures. By contrast, the ordinary unfair dismissal claim succeeded because the dismissal for a conduct-related reason was unfair. The tribunal also dismissed the breach of contract claim, finding that summary dismissal without notice did not breach the contract in light of the claimant's breach of confidentiality, trust and confidence. On reconsideration, the tribunal confirmed the liability findings and stated that the compensatory award would be reduced by 60% under paragraph 7, with no additional reduction for contribution, but the supplied text does not record a final monetary award.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | Protected-disclosure detriment claim. The tribunal granted amendment to add the written disclosure said to have been made to R2, but dismissed the claim on the merits, finding the respondents did not subject the claimant to detriment on the ground of protected disclosures. Nine specific detriment allegations were withdrawn and dismissed on withdrawal; five allegations remained actively pursued. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | Automatic unfair dismissal claim based on protected disclosures. The tribunal found that R1 dismissed the claimant on 2 November 2017 for a reason related to her conduct and that the principal reason was not that she had made the disclosures, so the claim failed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Ordinary unfair dismissal claim. The tribunal found the claimant was dismissed for a reason related to her conduct, but that the dismissal was unfair and therefore the claim succeeded. | Upheld | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Wrongful dismissal / breach of contract claim. The tribunal found the first respondent did not breach the contract by summarily dismissing the claimant without notice, referring to the claimant's breach of confidentiality, trust and confidence. | Dismissed | — | — |
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe 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.
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.