Case 6020568/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Imad El Kanj v Intesa Sanpaolo S.P.A. — 2025
- Case reference
- 6020568/2024
- Decision date
- 11 June 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Emery
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Imad El Kanj
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal heard Mr El Kanj's application for interim relief on 5 March 2025. He sought reinstatement pending his unfair dismissal hearing, saying Intesa Sanpaolo was forcing him back to Milan in retaliation and that he had made protected disclosures in May 2024. The respondent said he remained employed under an Italian contract and secondment agreement, had not been dismissed, and had not made protected disclosures. The tribunal decided the application on the papers, statements and submissions, without hearing oral evidence.
Applying the section 128 and 129 Employment Rights Act 1996 test, and the threshold described in Hancock v Ter-Berg and another, the tribunal held that there were significant evidential difficulties for the claimant. It found it unclear whether there had been a dismissal at all, noting that he had been paid in February 2025, that the respondent said he had a role to return to in Italy, and that the secondment agreement was for a fixed-term UK posting with an early termination clause allowing transfer back to Milan.
On the whistleblowing aspect, the tribunal said it was unclear from the papers what acts of whistleblowing were alleged. It found little evidence that the claimant had made public interest disclosures, observing that the material he relied on appeared mainly to concern private matters such as salary, visa issues, promised terms and team-management complaints, and that he was unable to specify what in those documents amounted to disclosure of a breach of legal obligation or regulatory issue.
The tribunal also considered causation and said that, even if any of the claimant's statements were protected disclosures, the issue was complicated by his earlier complaints and by the respondent's case that the secondment ended because of a breakdown in the London relationship. It concluded that the claimant had not shown he was likely to succeed on the section 103A complaint, so the application for interim relief was refused and dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | This was an application for interim relief under sections 128 to 129 ERA 1996 in relation to an alleged automatic unfair dismissal under section 103A ERA 1996. The tribunal refused the application and did not finally determine the underlying complaint. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- section 128 Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 129 Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 103A Employment Rights Act 1996
- Hancock v Ter-Berg and another
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.