Mr Ilyas Seitayev v Jusan Technologies Limited and 1 other — 2026

The Tribunal upheld Mr Ilyas Seitayev’s complaint that Jusan Technologies Limited and Mr Masudul Rony Wahid subjected him to detriment on the ground that he had made protected disclosures, contrary to sections 47B(1) and 47B(1A) of the Employment Rights Act 1996. It found that he made qualifying disclosures on 21, 22, 23 and 30 August 2023 to Ms Kulzhan Mehrabi, Mr Aidos Bekturganov and Mr Yerbol Orynbayev.

The Tribunal found that the claimant reasonably believed the disclosures to Ms Mehrabi and Mr Bekturganov were in the public interest and tended to show a potential criminal offence involving the intentional diversion of money intended for a charitable purpose, and a failure by Mr Wahid to comply with his fiduciary obligations as a director and chief executive of Jusan Technologies Limited. The requirements of sections 43B(1)(a) and (b) were therefore satisfied. Ms Mehrabi was an employer and a person with legal responsibility for the relevant failure, while Mr Bekturganov was not an employer but was a person with legal responsibility for it. The disclosures to Mr Orynbayev qualified under section 43G because the Tribunal found the relevant statutory conditions were met.

Both respondents subjected the claimant to the detriment of failing to pay the prescribed contractual sum of US$600,000 owed to him on termination of his contract. The Tribunal found that Mr Wahid was the controlling mind behind the failure to pay and, applying section 47B as interpreted in Fecitt v NHS Manchester and Zafar v Glasgow City Council, found that the detriment was done on the ground of the qualifying disclosures.

The judgment determined liability only. No remedy was awarded in this judgment; a separate remedy hearing and judgment were to follow.