Case 2202797/2019 · Employment Tribunal
in person For the v Mr R Cater, Litigation Consultant — 2019
- Case reference
- 2202797/2019
- Decision date
- 3 January 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Adkin
- Venue
- London Central
- Panel members
- Ms L Moreton, Ms C Brayson
Parties
2 namedClaimant
in person For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, a Greek Cypriot relationship manager at National Bank of Greece's London branch, made two protected disclosures that the tribunal accepted as qualifying disclosures. The first, in October 2017, concerned a suspicious payment involving a vulnerable client and a colleague; the second, in January 2019, concerned concerns about the IMS+ system and compliance with FCA Handbook requirements.
The whistleblowing detriment claim failed. The tribunal found that the claimant's suspension on 24 January 2019 was caused by the external disclosure of confidential private banking client information, not by the protected disclosures, and that the protected disclosures were at most a trivial factor. It also held that the report to the FCA on 25 January 2019 was required by the regulatory framework, so it did not amount to a detriment and, in any event, was not caused in more than a trivial way by the disclosures.
The automatic unfair dismissal claim under section 103A ERA 1996 also failed. The tribunal found that the principal reason for dismissal was gross misconduct: the claimant sent confidential client data externally on more than one occasion, and did not fully disclose the extent of the breach until the respondent had investigated her emails. The claimant's protected disclosures were found to be far from the sole or principal reason for dismissal.
The ordinary unfair dismissal claim was dismissed after the tribunal applied the Burchell approach and section 98(4) ERA 1996. It accepted that the respondent genuinely believed misconduct had occurred, had reasonable grounds for that belief, and carried out a reasonable investigation in the circumstances. The tribunal noted that the process was not ideal because investigation and disciplinary stages overlapped and the appeal was narrow, but concluded that the overall procedure and the sanction of dismissal were within the range of reasonable responses. The direct race discrimination claim was rejected because the earlier matters relied on by the claimant did not establish a prima facie case that race played any part in the dismissal.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | Direct race discrimination claim under section 13 Equality Act 2010. The tribunal found that earlier matters relied on by the claimant, including the 2016 job advertisement, pay, training and authorised signatory issues, did not establish a prima facie case and did not show that Greek Cypriot race played any part in the dismissal. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Whistleblowing | Protected disclosure detriment claim under section 47B ERA 1996. The alleged detriments were the suspension on 24 January 2019 and the FCA report on 25 January 2019; the tribunal held that the protected disclosures played no more than a trivial part in those decisions, and that the FCA notification was required in any event. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Ordinary unfair dismissal claim under sections 94 and 98 ERA 1996. The tribunal found the dismissal fair because the respondent believed the claimant had committed gross misconduct by repeatedly disclosing confidential client information externally, had reasonable grounds for that belief, carried out a reasonable investigation, and acted within the band of reasonable responses. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | Automatic unfair dismissal claim under section 103A ERA 1996. The tribunal found that the claimant's protected disclosures were far from the sole or principal reason for dismissal; the principal reason was gross misconduct involving disclosure of confidential private banking client information and the claimant's lack of candour about the extent of the breach. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
25 references- s.13 Equality Act 2010
- s.43B ERA 1996
- s.47B ERA 1996
- s.103A ERA 1996
- Burchell v BHS
- s.98(4) ERA 1996
- British Leyland (UK) Ltd v Swift
- Iceland v Jones
- RSPB v Croucher
- Sainsbury's v Hitt
- A v B
- West Midlands Co-operative Society v Tipton
- ACAS Discipline and Grievance Procedures 2015
- Chesterton Global Ltd v Nurmohamed
- Kilraine v London Borough of Wandsworth
- Dahou v Serco Ltd
- Fecitt v NHS Manchester
- Barton v Investec Henderson Crosthwaite Securities Ltd
- Igen Ltd v Wong
- Nagarajan v London Regional Transport
- Madarassy v Nomura International plc
- Ayodele v Citylink Ltd
- Hewage v Grampian Health Board
- Martin v Devonshires Solicitors
- Glasgow City Council v Zafar
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.