Compliance Director dismissed days after blowing the whistle to the FCA: £564,672 award
A Compliance Director who reported money laundering and unauthorised directors to the FCA was dismissed four days later. The tribunal found the dismissal was automatically unfair and awarded over half a million pounds.
1 min read · Last updated 19 May 2026
Case details
- #public-interest-disclosure
- #fca-regulation
- #money-laundering
- #unauthorised-directors
- #gross-misconduct
- #acas-uplift
- #wrongful-dismissal
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as Compliance Director from 2018 to 25 July 2022.
- On 21 July 2022, the claimant made a protected disclosure to the FCA about unauthorised director appointments, money laundering, and other regulatory breaches.
- The respondent dismissed the claimant on 25 July 2022 for alleged gross misconduct, citing failure to cooperate with new directors.
- The tribunal found the real reason for dismissal was the claimant's protected disclosure, not misconduct.
- The respondent did not carry out any investigation or disciplinary process before dismissing the claimant.
- The claimant was awarded £564,672.46 in total compensation, including a 15% ACAS uplift.
Timeline
-
Claimant freezes multi-million sum
In his role as MRLO, the claimant froze a large sum held in accounts of Goldenway PM, suspecting money laundering via disguised third-party payments.
-
Mr Bayern Wong resigns
Mr Bayern Wong, the other executive director, resigns, leaving the claimant as the sole director of the respondent.
-
Claimant warns Mr Luen about unauthorised activities
Mr Andrew Luen emails the claimant seeking to take over Mr Wong's duties; the claimant warns that performing controlled functions without FCA approval is unlawful.
-
Claimant receives warning letter
The claimant receives a warning letter for lack of cooperation; he responds detailing concerns about money laundering, Chinese espionage, and regulatory breaches.
-
Mr Liu appointed as director without FCA approval
Mr Luen informs the claimant that Mr Tim Liu Feng has been appointed as a director; the claimant refuses to assist until FCA approval is obtained.
-
Claimant removed as director; new directors appointed
The respondent's owner passes resolutions to remove the claimant as director and appoint Mr Liu and Mr Luen as directors with immediate effect.
-
Claimant makes protected disclosure to FCA
The claimant writes to the FCA detailing unauthorised appointments, money laundering, Chinese espionage, and other regulatory breaches.
-
Claimant dismissed for gross misconduct
The claimant is dismissed with immediate effect for alleged failure to cooperate and obstruction, without any disciplinary process.
-
Substantive hearing begins
The employment tribunal hears the case over five days, concluding that the claimant was automatically unfairly dismissed for making protected disclosures.
-
Remedy hearing
The tribunal awards the claimant £564,672.46 in compensation, including basic award, past and future losses, holiday pay, and a 15% ACAS uplift.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant was automatically unfairly dismissed because he made qualifying public interest disclosures to the FCA, and whether the respondent's stated reason of gross misconduct was genuine.
The outcome
The tribunal found that the claimant was automatically unfairly dismissed because he made protected disclosures to the FCA about serious regulatory breaches, including unauthorised director appointments and money laundering. The respondent's claim that the dismissal was for gross misconduct was rejected; no investigation or disciplinary process had been carried out.
The compensation awarded was £564,672.46, comprising:
- Basic award: £3,426
- Compensatory award (including past and future loss of earnings, loss of pension, and loss of statutory rights): calculated to cover the full loss
- Holiday pay: £4,262.40
- 15% ACAS uplift for failure to follow the ACAS Code of Practice on disciplinary procedures
Lessons & takeaways
- Making a protected disclosure to a prescribed regulator like the FCA can give strong protection against dismissal, even if the employer claims a different reason.
- Employers who dismiss without any investigation or disciplinary process risk a finding of automatic unfair dismissal and substantial compensation.
- An ACAS uplift of up to 25% can be applied if the employer fails to follow the ACAS Code of Practice on disciplinary and grievance procedures.
- The public interest test for whistleblowing is satisfied if the disclosure concerns matters like money laundering or regulatory breaches that affect others beyond the employee.
This case shows the stark consequences for an employer who dismisses a whistleblower without any proper process. The claimant, a Compliance Director with four years' service, had repeatedly raised concerns about unauthorised director appointments, money laundering, and other serious regulatory breaches. When he finally reported these to the FCA, he was dismissed just four days later for alleged gross misconduct.
The tribunal found that the real reason for dismissal was the protected disclosure, not the misconduct alleged. The respondent had not carried out any investigation or disciplinary hearing before dismissing the claimant. This failure to follow basic procedure not only made the dismissal automatically unfair but also led to a 15% uplift in compensation under the ACAS Code.
What the employer could have done differently
The respondent could have avoided liability by taking the claimant's concerns seriously and investigating them properly. If they genuinely believed there was misconduct, they should have followed a fair disciplinary process. Instead, they acted precipitously, which the tribunal saw as evidence that the real motive was retaliation for the whistleblowing.
Why this matters for similar claims
This case reinforces that whistleblowers are protected from dismissal even if the employer claims a different reason. The size of the award – over half a million pounds – reflects the high value of the claimant's role and the significant losses he suffered. It also shows that tribunals will scrutinise the timing of dismissal closely: a dismissal shortly after a protected disclosure is a red flag. For employees considering blowing the whistle, this case demonstrates the importance of reporting to a prescribed regulator and keeping records of all concerns raised.
Similar cases
Electrician dismissed after raising asbestos concerns: whistleblowing and wrongful dismissal claim succeeds
An electrician who raised asbestos safety concerns was dismissed for alleged expense fraud. The tribunal found the dismissal was tainted by whistleblowing and awarded nearly £20,000.
Night care assistant dismissed for sleeping on duty: dismissal upheld
A night care assistant who was found asleep on three occasions was fairly dismissed for gross misconduct. The tribunal also rejected his claims of discrimination and whistleblowing detriment.
Dismissed by email while on maternity leave: a conduct process that never happened
An account manager with 19 years' unblemished service was summarily dismissed by email while on maternity leave, with no investigation or disciplinary hearing. The tribunal awarded £37,310.
Personal Assistant dismissed during notice period: employer entitled to act on repudiatory breach
A tribunal rejected a wrongful dismissal claim from a PA with six months' service who was summarily dismissed after blocking her manager on WhatsApp and returning the business phone unattended. No compensation was awarded.