Mr S Gorton QC (Counsel) For the v Respondent — 2020

The tribunal found that the Claimants transferred into the Respondent's business by TUPE and that the dispute arose during the integration of FRFX clients, including compliance checks, client-money reconciliation, and the treatment of Magna commissions. It held that the earliest March 2018 complaints were operational in nature and were not protected disclosures, but later communications in April and May 2018 about withholding client funds, KYC checks, and Magna commissions were disclosures made in the public interest and tended to show possible legal breaches.

On the whistleblowing detriment claims, the tribunal upheld the allegations where the Respondent asked Mrs O'Brien to rescind the FRFX API licence, took steps to remove the Claimants as statutory directors, threatened and issued litigation, imposed FCA-related restrictions, excluded them from the office and meetings, and later issued share-forfeiture resolutions. It found the protected disclosures played more than a trivial part in that treatment. The tribunal did not treat the issuing of the dismissal notice itself as a separate detriment because it was integral to the dismissal, and several pleaded detriments had been withdrawn or were not established.

The tribunal also upheld ordinary unfair dismissal for both Claimants under s.98(4) ERA 1996. It found the dismissals were procedurally unfair because there was no disciplinary process, no concluded investigation, no hearing, and no appeal, and substantively unfair because the Respondent did not show a fair reason for dismissal. The hearing on liability only left remedy to a later case management process, and the reasons record no monetary award.

The automatic unfair dismissal claims under s.103A ERA 1996 were dismissed. The tribunal found the protected disclosures were not the sole or principal reason for dismissal; the central reasons were the stalled commercial negotiations about the FRFX sale, the alleged client-money shortfall, and a dysfunctional management dynamic. C1's direct sex discrimination claim failed because the tribunal did not find 'something more' beyond the difference in treatment and accepted Mr Horgan's explanation that the consultancy proposal turned on the respective roles of the Claimants. C2 withdrew his direct discrimination claim based on marital status.