Case 2202565/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr C Beevers v FICC Markets Standards Board Limited and 4 others — 2019
- Case reference
- 2202565/2019
- Decision date
- 10 September 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hodgson Representation
- Venue
- London Central
Parties
6 namedClaimant
Mr C Beevers
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr Beevers applied for interim relief under section 128 ERA 1996, relying on an alleged automatic unfair dismissal claim under section 103A ERA 1996 and related protected-disclosure allegations. The judge approached the application on the summary basis required by Taplin v C Shippam Ltd and London City Airport Ltd v Chackro, asking whether the claim appeared to have a pretty good chance of success at a final hearing. The hearing concerned only the interim relief application; the underlying merits claims were not determined.
The judge accepted that it was likely the claimant could show that he made disclosures of information, including allegations about pressure from the first respondent after Deutsche Bank raised a conflict issue in June 2018. However, he found serious difficulties with whether those disclosures were protected disclosures. He considered the respondent’s case that the claimant, as a senior technical adviser and expert witness, had access to sensitive confidential information and that there was a real prospect of conflict in his continuing to act as an expert witness against Deutsche Bank. On that basis, he had serious doubts that the claimant reasonably believed the disclosures tended to show wrongdoing within section 43B(1) or that they were made in the public interest, applying the guidance he cited from Chesterton Global Ltd v Nurmohamed.
On causation, the judge considered there was a real prospect that the respondent would establish dishonesty and that Mr O’Connor genuinely dismissed the claimant for the reasons advanced by the respondent. Those reasons included alleged nondisclosure of the Axiom litigation, concealment of work in a JP Morgan case, circulation of an anonymous email attaching legal advice, and failure to cooperate with the investigation. Applying the approach in Kuzel v Roche Products, the judge concluded that it could not be said the claimant was likely to succeed at the final hearing, and he dismissed the interim relief application.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Application for interim relief under section 128 ERA 1996 in support of an alleged automatic unfair dismissal claim under section 103A ERA 1996; the tribunal did not finally determine the underlying dismissal, detriment, or wrongful dismissal claims in this judgment. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
8 references- Taplin v C Shippam Ltd pretty good chance test
- London City Airport Ltd v Chackro
- s.128 ERA 1996
- s.103A ERA 1996
- s.43A ERA 1996
- s.43B ERA 1996
- Chesterton Global Ltd v Nurmohamed
- Kuzel v Roche Products
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.
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.