Ms. F Baksh v Advanced Markets (UK) Limited and 1 other — 2024

Ms. F Baksh was employed by Advanced Markets (UK) Limited as Managing Director and Head of Compliance and was dismissed with effect from 22 February 2022. She brought claims of whistleblowing detriment, automatic unfair dismissal and ordinary unfair dismissal. The tribunal found that the dismissal was not because of protected disclosures, but because of conduct and a resulting loss of trust and confidence.

On the protected disclosures, the tribunal rejected the first alleged disclosure about the Bermuda onboarding proposal because it found the claimant had not actually been told the UK entity would onboard Bermuda retail clients and did not have a reasonable basis for believing that was being proposed. It accepted that she raised a legitimate query about a client gift on 2 February, but found that by the end of that conversation and in her follow-up email she was satisfied there was no bribery and any issue could be dealt with by record-keeping. It also rejected the investor/Puerto Rico point because the court document did not show that a fraud claim was being brought against the shareholder, and it was not reasonable to treat it as such. By contrast, the tribunal found that the 3 February website email disclosed information about a possible FCA/regulatory breach and that the claimant had a reasonable belief that the uncorrected website could mislead clients.

The tribunal dismissed the alleged detriments said to follow the first three disclosures. It found there was no undermining of the claimant’s role on the 3 February call, no removal of duties, no exclusion from meetings, no rude or argumentative campaign by Anthony Brocco, no failure to include her in rectifying the website, and no sham reasons or sham appeal. It accepted that Brocco offered her the choice to resign rather than be dismissed on 22 February, but found that this was done to protect her future employability and was not because of any disclosure.

On the dismissal, the tribunal found the principal reason was conduct: the claimant’s earlier resignation threat in November 2021, her later salary ultimatum, and what Brocco understood to be misrepresentations to colleagues about the 20 February Dubai meeting and other matters. The tribunal held that the dismissal was procedurally unfair because the claimant was given no proper opportunity to respond before being dismissed, and the appeal could not cure that defect. It also found the claimant’s conduct was culpable and blameworthy, and that any compensatory award would be reduced by 100%, with the basic award reduced by 100% as well.