Mr C McCormack v Adviser Services Holdings Limited — 2024

On 29 May 2024 Mr C McCormack presented a second claim against Adviser Services Holdings Ltd, including complaints of automatic unfair dismissal for making protected disclosures under section 103A ERA 1996, ordinary unfair dismissal, and an application for interim relief. Employment Judge Johnson sat alone and the hearing was confined to whether the claimant had shown that he was likely to succeed at a final hearing for the purposes of the interim relief test under sections 128 and 129 ERA 1996.

The claimant relied at the hearing on three alleged disclosures made on 8 March, 25 March and 16 April 2024. The tribunal recorded that the 8 March email alleged improper conduct concerning bank sums and deletion of client files, the 25 March disclosure was said to have been made to the FCA but its contents were not shown to the tribunal, and the 16 April disclosure arose from a 1-2-1 meeting and an email referring to an investment scheme described by the claimant as a Ponzi scheme. The claimant said suspension and dismissal followed those disclosures.

The respondent argued that the alleged disclosures were bare allegations and did not satisfy the statutory requirements, and that the dismissal arose from misconduct and gross misconduct issues, including alleged failures to comply with management instructions and matters concerning the claimant's personal business. Applying the authorities it cited, including Taplin, Hancock v Ter-Berg and Royal Mail Ltd v Jhuti, the tribunal held that it was not satisfied that the claimant was likely to succeed at a final hearing. It said some of the alleged disclosures might ultimately satisfy section 43B, but on the material then available they were not shown beyond bare allegations and there remained uncertainty about the real reason for dismissal, so the application for interim relief failed.