Case 2305160/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr. A Mavour v Clearbank Ltd — 2025
- Case reference
- 2305160/2023
- Decision date
- 9 May 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Cawthray
- Venue
- London South
- Panel members
- Ms. G. Mitchell, Ms. S. Dengate
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr. A Mavour
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Claimant was employed by Clearbank Ltd as Finance Manager from 11 April 2023 under a contract signed on 22 March 2023. His employment was subject to a six-month probation period and, if terminated during probation, he was entitled to two weeks' notice. The tribunal found that performance concerns were raised shortly after he started work, that Ms Betts concluded he was not meeting the required standard, and that on 14 July 2023 he was told he had failed probation and that his employment was being terminated with payment in lieu of notice.
On the protected-disclosure / automatic unfair dismissal complaint, the tribunal found that the Claimant did not, as a matter of fact, make the two alleged disclosures to Mr Phillips on 7 July 2023. Because those statements were not found to have been made, the tribunal held there was no protected disclosure and the section 103A claim failed. In any event, the tribunal found that the reason for dismissal was the Respondent's view that the Claimant was not performing to the standard required, rather than any disclosure-making.
On disability, the tribunal accepted that the Claimant had hereditary exostoses and considered his evidence about nighttime seizures or shaking, but it held that there was insufficient evidence that either condition had a substantial and long-term adverse effect on normal day-to-day activities in July 2023. It therefore found that he was not disabled for Equality Act purposes and dismissed the reasonable adjustments complaint without needing to go further. The tribunal also noted that the relevant medical attendance for sleep issues was in August 2023, after the dismissal date.
On notice pay / wrongful dismissal, the tribunal found that at 11:28 on 14 July 2023 the Claimant emailed three documents containing confidential information from his work email to his personal email. It held that, on an objective assessment, this was sufficiently serious to amount to a fundamental breach of contract entitling the Respondent to dismiss without notice. All claims were dismissed and no remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Automatic unfair dismissal under section 103A ERA 1996. The tribunal found, as a matter of fact, that the Claimant did not make the two alleged protected disclosures to Mr Phillips on 7 July 2023; it therefore did not reach protected-disclosure status and held the dismissal claim failed. It also found the Respondent dismissed because it considered the Claimant was not performing to the required standard. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The claim covered disability status and reasonable adjustments. The tribunal accepted that hereditary exostoses and nighttime seizures were the conditions relied on, but held there was insufficient evidence that either condition had a substantial and long-term adverse effect on normal day-to-day activities in July 2023, so the Claimant was not disabled for Equality Act purposes. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | Notice pay / wrongful dismissal claim. The tribunal held that the Claimant's sending of confidential information to his personal email at 11:28 on 14 July 2023 was sufficiently serious to amount to a fundamental breach entitling the Respondent to dismiss without notice. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
11 references- s.43B Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.103A Employment Rights Act 1996
- Williams v Michelle Brown AM
- Cavendish Munro Professional Risks Management Ltd v Geduld
- Chesterton Global Ltd v Nurmohamed
- s.6 Equality Act 2010
- sections 20 and 21 Equality Act 2010
- Schedule 1 Equality Act 2010
- Environment Agency v Rowan
- Ishola v Transport for London
- fundamental breach / gross misconduct
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.