Case 3201050/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Ms Svetlana Sinelnikova v ActivTrades plc — 2017
- Case reference
- 3201050/2018
- Decision date
- 15 December 2017
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ross Members
- Venue
- East London Hearing Centre
- Panel members
- Ms L Conwell-Tillotson, Mr M Rowe
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms Svetlana Sinelnikova
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMs Sinelnikova worked for ActivTrades from 2011 and was Head of Compliance from April 2016, with CF11/MLRO responsibility from 2013. The tribunal accepted her and Mr Friend as reliable on compliance issues, rejected much of the respondent’s evidence, and found that the respondent’s witnesses had often given retrospective explanations for its treatment of her. It found that the decision to dismiss had been pre-determined before any fair investigation or hearing.
The tribunal accepted that the June 2017 request from Alex Pusco to open a real-money account in his own name was inappropriate, and it accepted the claimant’s disclosure of that request to Mr Friend as a protected disclosure. It also found that later disputes about delayed withdrawals, SAR information being discussed with Sales and Finance, and the October 2017 MIFIR/MFIR issues did not establish sex discrimination, but they did form part of a pattern in which the claimant was blamed for compliance problems that the tribunal found were not her responsibility. The tribunal also rejected the respondent’s case that her Dubai trip in late November and early December 2017 was misconduct; it found she was asked to attend by Mr Friend, worked while there, and that there were no reasonable grounds to treat the trip as gross misconduct.
On 15 December 2017 the claimant lodged a grievance raising POCA/tipping-off concerns, data-protection concerns, and direct sex discrimination. The tribunal found the POCA and data-protection disclosures were protected disclosures, and that the sex-discrimination complaint in the grievance was a protected act for Equality Act purposes. After that grievance, the respondent appointed Mr Gordon, disabled the claimant’s email access, issued a Form C to the FCA stating that she had been suspended when she had not, made further allegations about her Form A, eBay use, and music files, mishandled her subject access request, retained highly personal data after termination, and threatened High Court proceedings seeking over £384,000 and an injunction. The tribunal found that several of those later acts were materially influenced by the protected disclosures, and that the sex-discrimination complaint also materially influenced the later victimising treatment.
The tribunal held that the claimant was constructively dismissed on 2 February 2018, with the decisive final straw being the false allegation made on 29 January 2018 that she had provided false information in her FCA Form A. It held that the dismissal was unfair under ss.94 and 98 ERA 1996, that there should be no deduction for contribution or Polkey, and that a 25% ACAS uplift would be appropriate to any compensatory award. It did not uphold the separate automatic unfair dismissal complaint under s.103A ERA 1996, and it dismissed the direct sex discrimination claim under s.13 Equality Act 2010. No remedy sum was fixed in this judgment, and a remedies hearing was listed separately.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Constructive unfair dismissal was upheld under ss.94 and 98 ERA 1996. The tribunal found a repudiatory breach of the implied term of trust and confidence, with the 29 January 2018 false Form A allegation as the final straw, and held there should be no deduction for contribution or Polkey. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The separate automatic unfair dismissal complaint under s.103A ERA 1996 was not upheld. The tribunal found the dismissal was not because the claimant had made protected disclosures. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | The section 47B ERA 1996 detriment claim succeeded in respect of the material detriments the tribunal found were caused by protected disclosures, including the grievance-investigation failures, the false Form C, the later data-retention and SAR handling, the eBay/music allegations, and the High Court threats. Some earlier allegations were found to be out of time or not materially influenced by protected disclosures. | Upheld | — | — |
| Sex discrimination | Direct sex discrimination under s.13 Equality Act 2010 was not upheld. Although the tribunal accepted evidence of sexist remarks and an offensive advert, it found the specific adverse treatment complained of was driven by compliance/business disputes and the dismissal decision, not by sex. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
Legal tests applied
12 references- Cavendish Munro v Geduld disclosure of information test
- Kilraine v Wandsworth LBC
- Chesterton Global v Nurmohamed public interest test
- Fecitt v NHS Manchester material influence test
- Arthur v London Eastern Railway limitation test
- Shamoon detriment test
- Madarassy v Nomura burden of proof
- Malik trust and confidence test
- Kaur v Leeds Teaching Hospital NHS Trust last straw doctrine
- Kuzel v Roche Products reason for dismissal
- s.98(4) ERA 1996 range of reasonable responses
- Palmer v Southend on Sea BC reasonably practicable test
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.
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.