Mr J Crozier First v Pragmatic Web Ltd (dissolved) Second Respondent: Angry Creative (UK) Limited — 2023

The case was heard against Angry Creative (UK) Limited after Pragmatic Web Ltd had been dissolved. Mr J Crozier had been employed as a Business Development Manager from 9 November 2017 until his dismissal with effect from 16 March 2020. The judgment of 11 December 2023 was liability only; the breach of contract claim was withdrawn and remedy was left to a later hearing.

On the whistleblowing issues, the tribunal treated the 13 January 2020 email and the 14 January 2020 meeting together. It found that Mr Crozier had disclosed concerns about Laura Nelson's redundancy and whether processes and employment law had been followed, but held that he did not reasonably believe those matters were in the public interest. The tribunal found the concerns related to the private employment rights of one employee and were based on gossip, hearsay and suspicion, even though Mr Crozier genuinely believed what he said. As a result, the protected disclosure detriment claim under s.47B ERA 1996 and the automatic unfair dismissal claim under s.103A ERA 1996 failed. The tribunal also addressed the £900 commission that was not paid in January 2020; it unanimously found that, whatever the reason for the withholding, it was not caused by any protected disclosure.

On ordinary unfair dismissal, the majority of the tribunal members found that the principal reason for dismissal was that Mr Crozier had raised a grievance, not redundancy, against a background of financial difficulties and restructuring. They relied on the timing of the commission issue, Tom Chute's email to an HR consultant shortly before the grievance meeting, the limited documentary record, and the absence of a genuine search for alternatives. The majority found that the redundancy exercise was a sham and that the grievance, including criticism of Tom Chute, materially influenced the decision to dismiss. Employment Judge L Clarke dissented, finding that the dismissal was a genuine redundancy and that the process was fair. The majority therefore upheld the unfair dismissal claim.