Mr W Bonar v , solicitor Dalrada Financial Corporation and 2 others — 2025

The tribunal found that, from August 2023 at the latest, Mr W Bonar's only employer was Dalrada Financial Corporation (DFC), not Deposition Technology Ltd or Dalrada Technology Ltd. It held that the claimant's work across the UK and US entities was part of a single employment relationship with DFC, while his directorships in subsidiaries were separate. The claims against the second and third respondents were dismissed.

On dismissal, the tribunal held that Mr Bonar's letter of 30 August 2024 was an unambiguous resignation from his employment with DFC. DFC then served counter-notice by letter dated 6 September 2024, so he was dismissed within his notice period. Because the claimant had continuous service from 1 February 2004 and was entitled to 12 weeks' notice, the two weeks given by DFC was insufficient and the dismissal was wrongful.

The tribunal rejected the constructive dismissal and unfair dismissal cases. It found that the claimant resigned because he wanted to renegotiate his role and regain control over Deptech, not because DFC had committed a fundamental breach or because trust and confidence had irretrievably broken down. It also held that, although the protected disclosures formed part of the background, they were not the principal reason for the dismissal, so the ordinary and automatic unfair dismissal claims failed.

The tribunal accepted that Mr Bonar made protected disclosures from December 2023 onward about the Apclen and Moroccan transactions. It found that he had a genuine and reasonable belief that financial malpractice had occurred, relying on altered shipping documentation, the suspicious email domain connected with the Moroccan transaction, and his concerns about revenue recognition and document alteration. The tribunal held that these disclosures were made in the public interest and included emails to DFC leadership, the audit committee, HR, a US investigator, the SEC, auditors, and later board correspondence.

Most alleged detriments were rejected. The tribunal did not accept that stress alone was a detriment, found no protected-disclosure link to the proposed board appointment, the solicitor correspondence, requests to sign covenants, alleged statements about the claimant, alleged comments to customers, or the treatment of his wife and son. It upheld only the filing of the California action by DFC and the third respondent, finding that it was inextricably linked to the protected disclosures and was raised at least in part to stop him continuing to make them. The tribunal awarded £15,000 for injury to feelings and awarded notice pay for wrongful dismissal; the reasons contain inconsistent net figures, but the calculation at paragraph 167 supports £18,631 net, giving combined awards of £33,631 on that calculation.