Case 3202426/2018 · Employment Tribunal

Mr S N Andrabi v Gerry’s Offshore Incorporations Limited — 2021

Case reference: 3202426/2018
Decision date: 16 April 2021
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Gardiner Members
Panel members: Mr P Lowe, Mr M Rowe

Indexed: 22 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Mr S N Andrabi

Respondent

Gerry’s Offshore Incorporations Limited

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

Mr Andrabi moved from Pakistan to the UK in January 2015 to manage Gerry's Offshore Incorporations Limited's visa business. He was paid £4,000 per month, worked under a five-year Intra-company Transfer visa, and the Tribunal found that he was not given an updated statement of employment particulars for the UK role.

On the protected disclosure issues, the Tribunal rejected the November 2015 email about a flight and gift as a qualifying disclosure, found the March 2016 Qazafi transfer issue lacked the public interest element, and rejected the alleged October 2017 and February 2018 PAYE/cash-payment disclosures as not proved. It accepted that the 24 September 2016 WhatsApp message about a £2,100 hotel booking for a senior official was a protected disclosure because the Claimant reasonably believed it could amount to bribery and that the disclosure was in the public interest.

The protected disclosure detriment complaint failed because the Tribunal held it was out of time: the relevant acts were before 4 July 2018, ACAS Early Conciliation started on 3 October 2018, and the complaint was also not well founded. On dismissal, the Tribunal found that Ms Masood's email of 5 May 2018 was notice dismissing the Claimant from his UK role, not a resignation, and that later resignation wording did not supersede that notice.

The Tribunal rejected the Respondent's case that the dismissal was for redundancy or some other substantial reason, and found no fair process had been followed. It also found that the single protected disclosure it had accepted was not the reason or principal reason for dismissal; the dismissal was instead driven by the decision to remove the Claimant from the UK role. The ordinary unfair dismissal claim therefore succeeded, while the automatic unfair dismissal claim failed, and the Tribunal listed a remedy hearing. The Tribunal also held that the Claimant was entitled to an award of four weeks' pay under s.38 Employment Act 2002 for the missing employment particulars, but it did not quantify that award in this judgment.

Claims and outcomes

4 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Whistleblowing	Complaint under s.47B ERA 1996. The Tribunal held it was presented outside the three-month time limit and, in any event, was not well founded.	Dismissed	—	—
Whistleblowing	Automatic unfair dismissal under s.103A ERA 1996. The Tribunal accepted only the 24 September 2016 hotel-booking disclosure as protected, but found it was not the reason or principal reason for dismissal.	Dismissed	—	—
Unfair dismissal	Ordinary unfair dismissal under s.98 ERA 1996. The Tribunal found the Claimant was dismissed by the 5 May 2018 email, rejected redundancy and some other substantial reason, and found no fair procedure was followed.	Upheld	—	—
Other	Entitlement to a sum equivalent to four weeks' pay under s.38 Employment Act 2002 for failure to provide an up to date statement of employment particulars for the UK role. The judgment does not quantify the sum and a remedy hearing was to follow.	Upheld	—	—

Legal tests applied

16 references

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.