Claimant v Kapoor v Globalgrange Ltd and Mr H Matharu — 2019

The tribunal held that the Claimant made qualifying disclosures on 23 January 2017 and 15 May 2017, but not on the 10 March 2017 telephone call or the 12 May 2017 server-related email. It concluded that complaints about detriments occurring before 9 March 2018 were outside jurisdiction because they were out of time and no reasonable-practicability basis was shown.

For the detriment complaints that remained in time, the tribunal found that the Respondent's suspension, grievance handling and disciplinary steps were not taken because of the disclosures. It found those actions were driven by the Claimant's prolonged refusal to provide Grange CRM and related IT data, and by the surrounding Credofide dispute, rather than by the protected disclosures.

On dismissal, the tribunal found that the Claimant's email of 9 March 2018 did not terminate the employment because it was not received. It held that the actual dismissal was on 23 March 2018. The section 103A automatic unfair dismissal claim failed because the reason for dismissal was found to be conduct-related, not the making of protected disclosures.

The section 98 unfair dismissal claim succeeded. The tribunal found the Respondent had not carried out a reasonable investigation, had not properly disclosed evidence, had not allowed relevant witnesses to give evidence, and had conducted a process that was fundamentally flawed and unfair. It applied the ACAS Code and increased the award by 25%, resulting in £1,956 basic award, £500 compensatory award and a £614 uplift.

Separately, the Respondent conceded the Claimant's breach of contract claim and was ordered to pay £464.87. The Respondent's own breach of contract counterclaim was withdrawn and dismissed upon withdrawal. The tribunal also ordered costs of £2,561 against the Respondent in relation to the withdrawn counterclaim.