Mr F Filippi v BNP Paribas London Branch — 2022

The tribunal found that the claimant made protected disclosures in early 2010 about the Milan ETS/RLP business with FIA/Farad, including concerns about licensing, fees on secondary-market distribution, and possible regulatory breaches. It also found that he made further protected disclosures in early 2014 about competitors in Italy engaging in similar secondary-market fee practices, that similar discussions continued within his team between 2014 and 2016, and that in June 2017 he and colleagues raised concerns with Stefano Sbranchella and Dario Savoia about competitors paying fees to distributors in connection with placement activity on the secondary market.

The only detriment complaint before the tribunal was the claimant's repatriation to the UK on 1 September 2017. The tribunal held that it did not have jurisdiction to consider that complaint because it was presented outside the primary time limit and the claimant had not shown that it was not reasonably practicable to present it in time. In the alternative, the tribunal found that the repatriation decision was made in June 2017 because of advice about the cost and location of any redundancy process, not because of the protected disclosures.

On dismissal, the tribunal found that the decision to terminate the claimant's role was made at a meeting on 27 April 2017 and communicated to him on 24 May 2017, before the June 2017 disclosures. It held that the reason was a team reorganisation and cost-saving exercise, with the claimant's role being removed and his main responsibilities absorbed by existing team members, rather than protected disclosures. The tribunal characterised the reason as some other substantial reason and concluded that the dismissal was fair under section 98(4) ERA 1996, relying on the claimant's high remuneration, the feedback given in 2016, the lack of improvement in early 2017, and the consultation and assistance offered to help him find another role.