Mr A. Mora Bolivar v M Three Corporate Consulting Ltd — 2025

The Claimant, a trainer engaged by the Respondent to deliver training in Dubai, alleged that he had made protected disclosures to the Respondent about working in the UAE without an appropriate work visa, and that he had been automatically unfairly dismissed for doing so. The Tribunal heard the case over three days in October 2025, with the Claimant participating remotely from Spain on a restricted basis (his written statement was read but he did not give sworn evidence or submit to cross-examination, as Spain had not authorised remote evidence to a UK tribunal).

On the merits, the Tribunal concluded that the Claimant had not made any qualifying disclosure to the Respondent. It found that the only reliable contemporaneous communication on the visa issue (an email of 1 December 2023 to Ms Moore forwarding information from a UAE adviser) set out options for obtaining a future work visa and did not convey information tending to show that a legal obligation had been breached. The Tribunal also found the Claimant's account internally inconsistent when compared with his own emails of 26 October and 20 December 2023, and concluded that, even if he had communicated the matter as he alleged, he had not done so in the public interest but in his own private interest in continuing to work in the UAE. A further alleged disclosure to a third party (Mr Farrant of Inspirit) was not supported by the Claimant's witness statement and the burden of proof was not discharged.

Because no qualifying disclosure was established, the claim of automatically unfair dismissal necessarily failed and was dismissed. The Tribunal recorded final observations that neither party had been entirely frank with it: the Respondent's witnesses were described as selective and somewhat evasive, and the Claimant's account was found to be untruthful and self-serving in some important respects, with the asserted consequences for his life after employment described as greatly exaggerated.