Case 3311054/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs Helen Teresa Adams v Poro Technologies Limited and 1 other — 2023
- Case reference
- 3311054/2023
- Decision date
- 9 June 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Michell
- Venue
- Bury St Edmunds
- Panel members
- Mr Desmond Hart, Mr Andrew Scott
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mrs Helen Teresa Adams
Respondents
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMrs Helen Teresa Adams worked as chief commercial officer from 1 September 2021 until she was dismissed with a PILON on 17 May 2023. She brought claims of automatically unfair dismissal under s.103A ERA, detriment for making protected disclosures under s.47B ERA, and victimisation under s.27 EqA. The hearing was on liability only, and the tribunal dismissed all claims.
The tribunal accepted that at the 10 January 2022 meeting about Dandan Zhu’s treatment of Liang Jie and Sid Suman, the claimant made a protected disclosure about bullying, health and safety, and the company’s duty of care. It did not accept that she alleged race discrimination, expressly or by implication, so that meeting was not a protected act under the Equality Act. The tribunal found Dr Zhu’s response was at the lowest end of detrimental treatment, but any standalone complaint about that event was out of time.
For the later alleged disclosures on 10 February 2022, 26 July 2022 and 4 August 2022, the tribunal found the claimant probably gave limited information about workplace concerns, morale, staff attrition and duty of care, and that the public-interest and qualifying-disclosure questions were finely balanced. However, it found Dr Zhu was not shown to know the substance of those disclosures at any material time. On that basis, and because it rejected a causal link, the alleged detriments about pay, share options, sidelining, meetings, NDAs, role descriptions, the Amazon presentation, the Warren East incident and the refusal to hear an appeal were not made out as whistleblowing detriments.
The tribunal also rejected the case that the April 2023 CAP-table conversation and the 10 May 2023 draft press-release exchange were protected disclosures. It held that the dismissal on 11 and 17 May 2023 was driven by performance concerns and the claimant’s failure to deliver business results, not by protected disclosures. It noted that, had this been an ordinary unfair dismissal claim, she might have succeeded, but on the claims before it the tribunal found no liability and no remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Automatic unfair dismissal under s.103A ERA was dismissed. The tribunal found the reason or principal reason for dismissal was performance concerns and the claimant’s failure to meet the company’s expectations, not protected disclosures. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | The detriment claim under ss.47B, 47B(1A) and 47B(1B) ERA was dismissed. The tribunal found PD1 was a protected disclosure but not a protected act; PD2 to PD4 were limited protected disclosures but Dr Zhu was not shown to know their substance at material times; PD5 and PD6 were not protected disclosures. One January 2022 detriment was found on the facts but was time-barred. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Victimisation | The EqA victimisation claim was dismissed because the tribunal did not accept that the claimant made an allegation, express or implied, that Dandan Zhu’s conduct was race discrimination. It found race was first mentioned only in the appeal against dismissal. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
22 references- s.103A ERA 1996
- s.47B ERA 1996
- s.27 EqA 2010
- s.43B ERA 1996
- Waters v Metropolitan Police
- Warburton v Chief Constable of Northamptonshire Police
- Nagarajan v London Regional Transport
- Igen v Wong
- Fincham v HM Prison Service
- Babula v Waltham Forest College
- Chesterton v Nurmohamed
- Fecitt v NHS Manchester
- Royal Mail v Jhuti
- Timis v Osipov
- Cavendish Munro / Kilraine / Parsons v Airplus
- Blackbay Ventures v Gahir
- Eiger Securities v Korshunova
- Korashi v Abertawe
- Palmer v Southend-on-Sea City Borough Council
- Cygnet Behavioural Health v Britton
- Cullinane v Balfour Beatty Engineering Services
- Nicol v World Travel and Tourism Council
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.