Craig Stead v Ligman Ltd (in liquidation) and 1 other — 2021

Mr Stead was engaged to lead Ligman Ltd in the UK. The tribunal stayed the claim against the 1st respondent because the company had entered insolvent liquidation, and the case proceeded against the 2nd respondent. It also refused the strike-out application and heard the case on limited evidence, giving little weight to the 2nd respondent's written statement because he did not attend.

The tribunal accepted Mr Stead's account as truthful and found that two of the emails relied on by him were protected disclosures. The first concerned the absence of CE marks on products being sold into the UK; the tribunal accepted that CE certification was required and that Mr Stead reasonably believed the issue mattered. The second concerned a proposed email management programme that would have sent client data to Thailand without consent, which the tribunal found would have breached GDPR. The third email, about the company missing a 21-day contractual delivery target and losing business, was not a protected disclosure because the tribunal found there was no public interest in whether a profit-making business breached that contractual term.

The tribunal found that the dismissal on 23 October 2018 was caused by the protected disclosures, with the GDPR complaint in particular appearing to irritate the 2nd respondent and the dismissal email referring to Mr Stead's criticisms of the company's service and performance. It concluded that the disclosures were a principal reason for dismissal and that the later delivery-delay email was used as a pretext. The claim therefore succeeded as an automatically unfair dismissal under s.103A ERA 1996.

On remedy, the tribunal said there was no injury to feelings award because this was an automatically unfair dismissal claim. It awarded a basic award of £953.13, consisting of £762.50 plus a 25% uplift, and assessed past and future loss at £60,000 on the basis that Mr Stead would probably have been dismissed after a further three months and that his loss would end on liquidation. It then applied a 25% Acas uplift of £15,000 because there had been no process at all, producing a compensatory award of £75,000 and a total award of £75,953.13. The tribunal also said the recoupment regulations did not apply.