Case 8001095/2024 · Employment Tribunal

EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 8001095/2024 Held in Aberdeen on 8, 9, 14, & July 2025 Employment Judge N M Hosie Members K Pirie; J McCaig Mr M Daryoush v Baker Hughes — 2024

Case reference: 8001095/2024
Decision date: 15 February 2024
Jurisdiction: Scotland
Venue: Aberdeen
Panel members: K Pirie, J McCaig

Indexed: 21 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 8001095/2024 Held in Aberdeen on 8, 9, 14, & July 2025 Employment Judge N M Hosie Members K Pirie; J McCaig Mr M Daryoush

Respondent

Baker Hughes

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

Mr Mahdi Daryoush worked for Baker Hughes Limited from 1 March 2019 as a Sales Technician Manager. The tribunal found that on 5 September 2023 he sent 14 emails to his personal account containing 486 documents from his Baker Hughes email account, and that the respondent was alerted the next day by its data protection team. After an investigation by Paul Harding, disciplinary hearings on 17 January and 15 February 2024, dismissal without notice on 22 February 2024, and an unsuccessful appeal on 29 July 2024, the tribunal considered both ordinary unfair dismissal and automatic unfair dismissal by reason of protected disclosure.

Claims and outcomes

2 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Unfair dismissal	The tribunal found the reason for dismissal was conduct, not the alleged protected disclosure. It held the respondent had a genuine and reasonable belief in misconduct after a reasonable investigation, and that dismissal for the document download was within the band of reasonable responses. The conflict-of-interest issue alone would not have justified summary dismissal, but it reinforced the overall decision.	Dismissed	—	—
Whistleblowing	The tribunal, with some hesitation, accepted that the claimant had made a qualifying disclosure for s.43B purposes, but found no causal connection between any disclosure and the dismissal. Mr Morrison was unaware of the alleged disclosure when he decided to dismiss, and there was no evidence of collusion or that whistleblowing was raised as the reason for discipline during the process or appeal.	Dismissed	—	—

Legal tests applied

8 references

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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 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.