Mr Alan Smith v InvestCloud Limited — 2025

The claimant, Mr Alan Smith, was employed by InvestCloud Limited as Executive Vice President Business Development from 6 July 2021 until his dismissal on 1 February 2024. The tribunal found that his work increasingly involved Marketplace, Rathbones and later APL sales, and that by late 2023 the respondent was losing money, had serious doubts about Marketplace, and was considering a restructuring of APL and the creation of a Head of APL Sales role based in the US.

The tribunal held that PD2, PD3 and PD4 were protected disclosures. These were the claimant’s statements to Vincent Sos in August 2022, to Mr Wise in August 2022, and to Richard Lumb in April 2023 about Rathbones having been sold software the respondent did not have, the lack of a credible delivery plan, and the risk to colleagues’ health. PD1 was not protected, and PD5 to PD8 were not protected because they were broad allegations or opinions without sufficient factual content.

On the whistleblowing detriment claim, the tribunal found that several of the matters relied on were not caused by the protected disclosures. It accepted that the claimant was not considered through any structured process for the Head of APL Sales role and that the consultation began too late, but it found those decisions were driven by commercial restructuring, financial pressure and Ms Bellini’s genuine view of the claimant’s capability, not by whistleblowing. It also rejected the remaining alleged detriments, including the CRO point, the remuneration point, and the suggestion that the redundancy rationale was linked to the disclosures. The automatic unfair dismissal claim under s103A ERA 1996 was likewise dismissed.

The ordinary unfair dismissal claim succeeded. The tribunal found the reason for dismissal was redundancy, because work on Marketplace had ceased or diminished, but held that the dismissal was unfair under s98(4) ERA 1996 because consultation only became meaningful after the key decisions had already been taken and because there was no fair process for assessing the claimant against Adam Pollak for the Head of APL Sales role, which the tribunal regarded as potentially suitable alternative employment. The tribunal assessed a 50% Polkey chance of a fair dismissal anyway, and said compensation should be reduced by 10% because the claimant had retained confidential material for the purpose of these proceedings. A remedy hearing was listed for 7 and 8 October 2025.