Loading…

Case 2216895/2023 · Employment Tribunal

Mr J Moretti v v 1st Respondent: Davide Leone & Partners Investment Company Limited 2nd Respondent: Mr D Leone 3rd Respondent: Ms K Elliott 4th Respondent: Mr S O’Flaherty 5th Respondent: Mr A Di Celso 6th Respondent: Mr P Wilkin — 2025

Case reference: 2216895/2023
Decision date: 7 October 2025
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Nicolle
Venue: London Central
Panel members: Mr P de Chaumont-Rambert, Mr F Benson

Indexed: 22 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Mr J Moretti v

Respondent

1st Respondent: Davide Leone & Partners Investment Company Limited 2nd Respondent: Mr D Leone 3rd Respondent: Ms K Elliott 4th Respondent: Mr S O’Flaherty 5th Respondent: Mr A Di Celso 6th Respondent: Mr P Wilkin

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

Mr J Moretti brought claims arising from his long relationship with Mr Leone and his work at Davide Leone & Partners. The tribunal accepted that much of the case was built around extensive covert recordings and a large volume of documents. It found that the claimant had been off work on long-term sickness absence from 9 May 2022 and that he was dismissed on 20 June 2023 on capability grounds because there was no realistic prospect of his returning to active work in the foreseeable future.

Most of the alleged protected disclosures failed because they were too general, lacked specific factual content, were not made by reasonable means, or were personal complaints rather than disclosures of wrongdoing or health and safety risks. The tribunal did accept that some later written complaints, including parts of the grievance, the further information response and the pre-action letter, contained protected disclosures or protected acts about misogynistic, homophobic and discriminatory language and some allegations of bullying and harassment. It nevertheless held that those matters did not cause the dismissal and did not found the alleged detriments, and it dismissed the health and safety disclosure claims.

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Unfair dismissal	Ordinary unfair dismissal succeeded; the basic award of £2,572 was reduced by 50% under s.122(2) ERA to £1,286 because of the claimant's covert recordings, and the compensatory award was nil after a 100% Polkey deduction.	Upheld	—	£1,286
Whistleblowing	Automatic unfair dismissal under s.103A ERA dismissed; the tribunal found the reason for dismissal was capability and long-term sickness absence, not protected disclosures.	Dismissed	—	—
Whistleblowing	Dismissal for health and safety disclosures under s.100 ERA dismissed; the tribunal did not accept that the dismissal was for making health and safety disclosures.	Dismissed	—	—
Whistleblowing	Detriment on grounds of protected disclosures under s.47B ERA dismissed; the tribunal found no causal link between the protected disclosures it accepted and the alleged detriments.	Dismissed	—	—
Whistleblowing	Detriment for health and safety disclosures under s.44(1)(c) ERA dismissed; the tribunal held the claimant had not brought circumstances harmful to health and safety to the employer's attention by reasonable means.	Dismissed	—	—
Harassment	Race-related harassment allegations, including allegations tied to Jewish ancestry and comments about other individuals, were dismissed; the tribunal found no harassment and significant time-limit issues.	Dismissed	Race	—
Harassment	Harassment related to religious belief/Jewish identity was dismissed; the tribunal found no harassment and held that much of the conduct was out of time or insufficiently linked to the characteristic.	Dismissed	Religion or belief	—
Harassment	Sex-related harassment allegations, including misogynistic and sexualised language, were dismissed; the tribunal accepted the language was inappropriate but held it did not meet the s.26 threshold and much of it was out of time.	Dismissed	Sex	—
Harassment	Harassment related to sexual orientation was dismissed; the tribunal found the comments relied on were inappropriate but not enough to amount to harassment and the claim was out of time.	Dismissed	Sexual orientation	—
Harassment	Disability-related harassment was dismissed; the tribunal did not accept that the comments relied on were harassment related to disability.	Dismissed	Disability	—
Race discrimination	Direct race discrimination was dismissed; the tribunal found no less favourable treatment because of actual or perceived Jewish ethnic origin.	Dismissed	Race	—
Disability discrimination	Direct disability discrimination was dismissed; the tribunal found the dismissal was because of long-term sickness absence and capability, not because of disability.	Dismissed	Disability	—
Other	Discrimination arising from disability under s.15 EqA 2010 was dismissed; the tribunal held the dismissal was a proportionate response to prolonged absence and no foreseeable return.	Dismissed	Disability	—
Other	Failure to make reasonable adjustments under ss.20-21 EqA 2010 was dismissed; the tribunal found the alleged PCPs were not established or the proposed adjustments would not have alleviated the disadvantage.	Dismissed	Disability	—
Victimisation	Victimisation under s.27 EqA 2010 was dismissed; although some later complaints were treated as protected acts, the tribunal found no detriment caused by those acts.	Dismissed	—	—

Claim type

Issue or finding

Outcome

Protected characteristic

Award

Unfair dismissal

Ordinary unfair dismissal succeeded; the basic award of £2,572 was reduced by 50% under s.122(2) ERA to £1,286 because of the claimant's covert recordings, and the compensatory award was nil after a 100% Polkey deduction.

Upheld

—

£1,286

Whistleblowing

Automatic unfair dismissal under s.103A ERA dismissed; the tribunal found the reason for dismissal was capability and long-term sickness absence, not protected disclosures.

Dismissed

—

Whistleblowing

Dismissal for health and safety disclosures under s.100 ERA dismissed; the tribunal did not accept that the dismissal was for making health and safety disclosures.

Dismissed

—

Whistleblowing

Detriment on grounds of protected disclosures under s.47B ERA dismissed; the tribunal found no causal link between the protected disclosures it accepted and the alleged detriments.

Dismissed

—

Whistleblowing

Detriment for health and safety disclosures under s.44(1)(c) ERA dismissed; the tribunal held the claimant had not brought circumstances harmful to health and safety to the employer's attention by reasonable means.

Dismissed

—

Harassment

Race-related harassment allegations, including allegations tied to Jewish ancestry and comments about other individuals, were dismissed; the tribunal found no harassment and significant time-limit issues.

Dismissed

Race

—

Harassment

Harassment related to religious belief/Jewish identity was dismissed; the tribunal found no harassment and held that much of the conduct was out of time or insufficiently linked to the characteristic.

Dismissed

Religion or belief

—

Harassment

Sex-related harassment allegations, including misogynistic and sexualised language, were dismissed; the tribunal accepted the language was inappropriate but held it did not meet the s.26 threshold and much of it was out of time.

Dismissed

Sex

—

Harassment

Harassment related to sexual orientation was dismissed; the tribunal found the comments relied on were inappropriate but not enough to amount to harassment and the claim was out of time.

Dismissed

Sexual orientation

—

Harassment

Disability-related harassment was dismissed; the tribunal did not accept that the comments relied on were harassment related to disability.

Dismissed

Disability

—

Race discrimination

Direct race discrimination was dismissed; the tribunal found no less favourable treatment because of actual or perceived Jewish ethnic origin.

Dismissed

Race

—

Disability discrimination

Direct disability discrimination was dismissed; the tribunal found the dismissal was because of long-term sickness absence and capability, not because of disability.

Dismissed

Disability

—

Other

Discrimination arising from disability under s.15 EqA 2010 was dismissed; the tribunal held the dismissal was a proportionate response to prolonged absence and no foreseeable return.

Dismissed

Disability

—

Other

Failure to make reasonable adjustments under ss.20-21 EqA 2010 was dismissed; the tribunal found the alleged PCPs were not established or the proposed adjustments would not have alleviated the disadvantage.

Dismissed

Disability

—

Victimisation

Victimisation under s.27 EqA 2010 was dismissed; although some later complaints were treated as protected acts, the tribunal found no detriment caused by those acts.

Dismissed

—

Mr J Moretti v v 1st Respondent: Davide Leone & Partners Investment Company Limited 2nd Respondent: Mr D Leone 3rd Respondent: Ms K Elliott 4th Respondent: Mr S O’Flaherty 5th Respondent: Mr A Di Celso 6th Respondent: Mr P Wilkin — 2025

Parties

Claimant

Respondent

Key findings

Claims and outcomes

Remedy

Legal tests applied

Official outcome judgment PDF

How we got this data