Case 2207960/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr B Bhagani v Goldenway Global Investments (UK) Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 2207960/2022
- Decision date
- 4 December 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Emery
- Venue
- London Central
- Panel members
- Mr S Aslett, Mr P Madelin
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr B Bhagani
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Mr B Bhagani, was the respondent's Compliance Director and held FCA controlled functions. The tribunal found that he made protected disclosures to the FCA on 21 July 2022 about the appointment of Mr Andrew Luen and Mr Tim Liu without FCA approval, alleged money laundering connected with GWFX funds, unauthorised activity by Mr Luen, alleged Chinese espionage, mind and management being in Hong Kong, and alleged fraudulent intercompany loans. It accepted that the respondent knew the broad nature of his concerns from earlier emails and messages, even though it said it had no direct knowledge of the FCA complaint at the time.
The tribunal held that the claimant reasonably believed the information was in the public interest, fell within the FCA's remit, and was substantially true. It found that the respondent's 26 July 2022 dismissal letter relied on alleged failure to cooperate and obstruction, but concluded that the real reason for dismissal was that the claimant had made whistleblowing disclosures to the FCA. The tribunal did not accept that the respondent genuinely believed he had committed gross misconduct, and it found that his refusal to act without FCA approval was within the remit of his compliance role. It made no Polkey reduction and found no contributory fault.
The unfair dismissal and automatic unfair dismissal complaints therefore succeeded. The tribunal also upheld the notice pay breach of contract claim and the Working Time Regulations claim for unpaid accrued holiday, but it did not determine the amount of either claim in this judgment. The case was left for a remedy hearing, so no monetary award is recorded here.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the claimant was unfairly dismissed. It rejected the respondent's case that gross misconduct was the genuine reason and found the claimant was acting within the remit of his compliance role when he refused to proceed without FCA approval. | Upheld | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | The tribunal held that the claimant made protected disclosures to the FCA and that the principal reason for dismissal was those disclosures. It accepted that the disclosures were made in the public interest, within the FCA's remit, and were reasonably believed to be substantially true. | Upheld | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The claimant succeeded on his notice pay claim. The judgment records liability only and leaves quantum to a later remedy hearing. | Upheld | — | — |
| Working time regulations | The tribunal held that the claimant was entitled to payment for accrued untaken annual leave on termination. The amount of unpaid holiday was left to be determined at remedy. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
16 references- s.43B ERA 1996
- s.43F ERA 1996
- s.98(4) ERA 1996
- s.103A ERA 1996
- Blackbay Ventures Ltd v Gahir
- Chesterton Global Ltd v Nurmohamed
- Ibrahim v HCA International
- Darnton v University of Surrey
- Harrow London Borough v Knight
- Fecitt v NHS Manchester
- Kuzel v Roche Products Ltd
- Panayiotou v Kernaghan
- Burchell test
- Graham v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions
- W Weddel & Co Ltd v Tepper
- Polkey v A E Dayton Services Ltd
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.