In person For the First v Ipay Solutions Ltd (In Liquidation) and Mr S Kuganathan — 2022

The claimant was employed by the first respondent from 15 June 2020 until 25 February 2021 on a salary of £24,000, with a possible discretionary bonus of up to £3,000. The tribunal heard a disputed account of the respondent company’s business and the claimant’s role, and it found that, although the evidence was unusual and much was challenged on both sides, the company was engaged in offering some sort of IT solution to small businesses and the claimant was employed to generate introductions.

The claimant alleged two protected disclosures. The first was said to be an email on 10 August 2020 to the second respondent raising concerns about use of the iPayTotal name while the company was being liquidated and about merchants asking for their money. The tribunal rejected that account, finding that the claimant did not produce the original email, did not produce a screenshot or the later email to solicitors that he said existed, and that on the balance of probabilities the August 2020 emails were never exchanged.

The second alleged disclosure was to the liquidator, Arvinder Singh, in December 2020. The tribunal found the claimant’s evidence about that contact was not convincing and concluded that he did not convey any information to Ms Singh before he was given notice of dismissal on 19 January 2021. It also found there was no evidence that the second respondent knew of any communication with Ms Singh before dismissal. Applying s.43A, s.43B, s.47B and s.103A of the Employment Rights Act 1996, and referring to Timis and anor v Osipov, the tribunal held that the claimant had not made protected disclosures, so the automatic unfair dismissal claim and the protected disclosure detriment claim both failed. It also recorded that the claimant did not have two years’ service for an ordinary unfair dismissal claim. All claims were dismissed and no remedy was awarded.