(1) Mr M Heinl (2) Ms H Laikko v Moving Brands Limited and 5 others — 2024

The tribunal upheld both claimants' ordinary unfair dismissal claims against Moving Brands Limited. It rejected the respondents' case that the dismissals resulted from a long-running and irretrievable breakdown in trust and confidence, a resistance to financial scrutiny, or misconduct about TOIL, the HPE lease, the New York lease or outside work. It found that the reasons advanced by the respondents were not proved, that the ordinary dismissal process was unfair, and that remedy would be determined later. The first claimant's section 103A automatic unfair dismissal claim was dismissed because the tribunal did not accept that the protected disclosures were the sole or principal reason for dismissal.

The tribunal accepted that Mr Heinl made a protected share transfer disclosure in summer 2020, when he raised concerns with Ben Wolstenholme about the transfer of shares between Ben and Guy Wolstenholme, the secrecy around it, possible tax consequences, and possible concealment. It found that the documentary record, including contemporaneous notes and emails, supported that disclosure and that Mr Heinl reasonably believed it tended to show possible tax evasion and other legal wrongdoing. By contrast, the tribunal found that the broader business conduct disclosures were not protected disclosures: although Mr Heinl raised concerns about personal tax advice, Madefire-related expenditure and work, Guy Wolstenholme's tax payments, and the Norton & Sons issue, it held that these matters were, on the evidence, costs and governance concerns rather than a reasonable belief in the pleaded wrongdoing.