Dalrada Financial Corporation and Others
Case Summary
The claimant was wrongfully dismissed by the first respondent, ordered to receive £31,730 gross (net of £18,631.10) as compensation for wrongful dismissal and an award in respect of injury to feelings of £15,000.
Why this outcome?
Claim not well-foundedThe tribunal found that the claimant was wrongfully dismissed by the first respondent, entitling them to compensation for wrongful dismissal and an award for injury to feelings.
Key Issues
- •Wrongful dismissal
- •Protected disclosures and detriment
Claim Types
Cited Laws and Legal Issues
8002183/2024and 8002185/2024 Page11 Automatically unfair dismissal 21.Section 103A of ERA states that: An employee who is dismissed shall be regarded for the purposes of this Part as unfairlydismissed if the reason (or, if more than one, the principal reason) for the dismissal is that the employee
8002183/2024and 8002185/2024 Page2 4.The claimant made protected disclosures and was subjected to a detriment by thefirstrespondenton the ground that he madea protected disclosurein that thefirstrespondent raised an action against him in the South Californian Courtand thefirstrespondentis ordered to pay the c
122.While reference was made in the claimant’s submissions to a TUPE transfer having taken place at some stage, there was no evidence given about any TUPE transfer and that had not been a point set out in the claimant’s pleadings.
Decision Text
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case numbers:8002183/2024 and 8002185/2024 Final Hearing in Edinburgh on 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27 and 30 June 2025 Employment Judge A Jones Mr W Bonar Claimant Represented by: Ms Harvie, solicitor Dalrada Financial Corporation First Respondent Represented by Ms Sutherland, solicitor Deposition Technology Ltd Second Respondent Represented by Ms Sutherland, solicitor Dalrada Technology Ltd Third respondent Represented by Ms Sutherland, solicitor JUDGMENT 1.The claimant’s employerat the material time was thefirstrespondent 2.The claimant waswrongfullydismissedwhen thefirstrespondent served counter notice on the claimant and thefirstrespondent is ordered to pay to the claimant thenetsum ofnetof £18,671.10as compensation. 3.The claimant was not constructively or unfairly dismissed by thefirst respondent. 8002183/2024and 8002185/2024 Page2 4.The claimant made protected disclosures and was subjected to a detriment by thefirstrespondenton the ground that he madea protected disclosurein that thefirstrespondent raised an action against him in the South Californian Courtand thefirstrespondentis ordered to pay the claimant an award in respect ofinjury to feelingsof£15,000 5.The claimant was not automatically unfairly dismissed. 6.The claims against the second and third respondents are dismissed. INTRODUCTION 1.The claimant had raised two claims against three respondents which had been combined.The case involves acomplex corporate s...
Employer
Case Details
- Case Number
- 8002183/2024
- Tribunal
- Employment Tribunal
- Level
- First instance
- Decision Date
- 28/07/2025
- Published
- 01/09/2025
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge A Jones