Mr J Gidney, Counsel For the v Respondent — 2022

The tribunal first identified which of the Claimant's communications were protected disclosures. It rejected the August 2019 corporate governance paper, the 29 January 2020 stress comment and the 15 April 2020 budget emails as protected disclosures, but accepted that the 7 and 9 July 2020 communications about Mr Ross' mental health, pressure at work and holiday were protected disclosures, as were the 28 July 2020 email about her removal as director and the September 2020 grievance, EGM material and external disclosures to investors.

It found that Mr Williams deliberately removed the Claimant as a director on 17 July 2020, then told her on 20 July that she had been removed and was being placed on garden leave. The tribunal held that the ensuing disciplinary/capability process was not fair: there had been no investigatory meeting, no proper attempt to obtain occupational health advice, no adequate disclosure of the case to answer, and no fair opportunity for the Claimant to respond before dismissal was considered. It concluded that the process had been driven by the Claimant's protected disclosures, not by the Respondent's asserted investor pressure.

On causation, the tribunal rejected the Respondent's case that investor pressure was the principal reason for dismissal. It found there was no clear documentary evidence of any investor instruction to dismiss, only support for removal as a director, and it held that the principal reason for dismissal was the protected disclosures, particularly the 9 July 2020 position paper about Mr Ross and the 21 September 2020 email to Dominic Walsh. The tribunal also held, in the alternative, that the dismissal was unfair under s98(4) ERA 1996. It assessed Polkey at 30% for fair dismissal in any event and found no contributory fault.

The tribunal upheld age discrimination, accepting evidence that a recruiter had been asked for a younger person more in tune with a young tech start-up and relying on Mr Williams' "hormones" comment and related evidence as part of the reason for dismissal. It also upheld the whistleblowing detriment claim, identifying detriments in the removal as director, garden leave, the disciplinary process, refusal of the EGM request, and the PWC/investment documentation that omitted the Claimant. On the contractual and pay claims, it found unpaid reimbursable expenses of £6,589.61 and held that accrued but untaken holiday remained unpaid, while also finding that the Claimant was entitled to three months' notice and had been wrongfully dismissed.

A remedy hearing was listed for 3 October 2022, so this judgment records liability findings and some quantified sums, but no final overall award.