Case 3307544/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr C Rajgopaul KC and Mr Tom Lowenthal For the v Respondent — 2024
- Case reference
- 3307544/2020
- Decision date
- 4 June 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Cowen
- Venue
- Watford Tribunal
- Panel members
- Mr L Hoey, Mr D Sagar
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Mr C Rajgopaul KC and Mr Tom Lowenthal For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal found that the Claimant, Dr Ron Black, the former CEO of Imagination Technologies Group Limited, was automatically unfairly dismissed under section 103A of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The Tribunal concluded that the principal reason for his dismissal on 10 April 2020 was the protected disclosures he had made on 6 April 2020, which the Respondents characterised as allegations of impropriety against Imagination, Canyon Bridge and its investors. While the Tribunal accepted that the dismissal was not solely due to the protected disclosures and that the Claimant's conduct on 6 April also played a part, the disclosures were held to be the principal reason.
The Tribunal further found that the Claimant suffered detriments on the ground of his protected disclosures, specifically the dismissal of himself on 10 April 2020 and the dismissal of his wife, Mrs Black, on 30 April 2020. All other alleged detriments were dismissed. Claims against the Sixth Respondent, Canyon Bridge International Holding Investment Limited, were dismissed upon withdrawal at the outset of the hearing by agreement of the parties.
On remedy, the Tribunal considered that, on the balance of probabilities, the Claimant would not have remained in his role indefinitely; it found that further conflict between the Claimant and the directors would likely have arisen within six months of dismissal, probably leading to his exit on bad-leaver terms. The Tribunal directed that further evidence on remedy would be heard at a separate hearing.
Claims and outcomes
4 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | Automatic unfair dismissal under s.103A ERA 1996: the Tribunal found the principal reason for the Claimant's dismissal on 10 April 2020 was the making of protected disclosures on 6 April 2020. | Upheld | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | Detriment due to protected disclosures: dismissing the Claimant on 10 April 2020 and dismissing Mrs Black on 30 April 2020 were found to be detriments arising from the protected disclosures. | Upheld | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | All other allegations of detriment on grounds of protected disclosures were dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | All claims against the Sixth Respondent (Canyon Bridge International Holding Investment Limited) were dismissed upon withdrawal by agreement of the parties at the outset of the hearing. | Withdrawn | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- s.103A Employment Rights Act 1996
- Tiplady v City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council [2020] ICR 965, CA
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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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.