Case 3207485/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Miah v FIS Capital Markets UK Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 3207485/2021
- Decision date
- 13 October 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge P Klimov
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Miah
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr M Miah brought a complaint that he had been subjected to a detriment on the ground that he had made a protected disclosure, relying on sections 47B and 48(1A) of the Employment Rights Act 1996. At the hearing on 13 October 2022 before Employment Judge P Klimov sitting alone, that complaint was dismissed following withdrawal by the claimant, and the claimant’s application to amend the claim was refused.
The tribunal recorded that all other complaints in the claim were dismissed by consent. It also found that the claimant had acted unreasonably in the way the proceedings were conducted and that the claim had no reasonable prospect of success. The respondent was awarded £15,619 in costs, payable within 14 days of the date the judgment was sent to the parties, and the final hearing listed for 23-26 and 30 January 2024 was vacated.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | The complaint under sections 47B and 48(1A) ERA 1996 was dismissed following withdrawal by the claimant. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Other | All other complaints in the claim were dismissed by consent; the extract does not specify their individual legal character. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £15,619
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- s.47B ERA 1996
- s.48(1A) ERA 1996
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.