The Employment Tribunal has upheld Ilyas Seitayev’s whistleblowing detriment claim against Jusan Technologies Limited (his former employer) and its chief executive, Masudul Rony Wahid.
Mr Seitayev, formerly Chief Operating Officer at Jusan, claimed that after raising internal concerns about large payments and documents linked to Mr Wahid, he was denied the termination payment his contract provided for upon resignation. He argued the US$600,000 sum was withheld to punish him for blowing the whistle. Both Respondents denied the claims, and argued that Mr Seitayev’s actions in breaching confidentiality meant he was not entitled to the payment.
The Tribunal has found in favour of Mr Seitayev, ruling that his disclosures should have been protected according to the law and that the company’s failure to deliver the contractual termination payment constituted a detriment.
Chris Pavlou, Employment Partner at Excello Law, acted for Mr Seitayev. Chris comments:
“We welcome the Tribunal’s decision in Mr Seitayev’s case. This outcome underlines the fundamentals of UK whistleblowing law: employees must be able to raise concerns they reasonably believe are in the public interest, without being subjected to adverse treatment by their employer as a result.”
Background to the claim
Mr Seitayev commenced employment with Jusan Technologies Limited in 2022 as COO and Product Developer. His contract provided for a $600,000 termination payment if he resigned for “good reason”, including a material reduction in the company’s assets.
The claim concerned disclosures made in August 2023. Mr Seitayev says he raised concerns internally about documents outlining arrangements providing for various payments to be made to Mr Wahid, including a $12 million termination payment, an option arrangement said to provide either a 5% shareholding or a $35 million payment, and other high‑value transactions. Mr Seitayev stated that he disclosed these matters to the company’s General Counsel, a manager of the majority shareholder, and later to a former director/minority shareholder after his concerns were not taken up.
Mr Seitayev resigned on 14 September 2023, citing a material reduction in the company’s assets, and says the company confirmed it would pay the full termination sum if he signed a waiver letter, which he returned on 2 October 2023. He says he was then suspended in November 2023 pending an investigation into an alleged disclosure of confidential information, and was told in January 2024 that the termination payment would be made “subject to” the investigation outcome. The payment was never made.
Mr Seitayev argued that withholding the payment amounted to unlawful whistleblowing detriment under the Employment Rights Act 1996. The remedies sought included a declaration, compensation (including injury to feelings and the unpaid sum) and interest.
The Respondents denied that Mr Seitayev made protected whistleblowing disclosures, saying his communications were allegations, not reasonably believed to be in the public interest, and they were not made via a legally recognised disclosure route. They also denied any unlawful detriment, arguing the termination payment was not payable because Mr Seitayev materially breached confidentiality and cooperation obligations, and any compensation should therefore be reduced.
The Tribunal’s judgment
In its judgment, the Employment Tribunal found that:
- Mr Seitayev’s communications amounted to protected disclosure of “information” (rather than mere allegations) and therefore met the statutory threshold for a qualifying disclosure.
- Mr Seitayev reasonably believed his disclosures were made in the public interest and tended to show one or more relevant forms of wrongdoing.
- Jusan Technologies Limited’s failure to pay the contractual termination payment by the pleaded due date (and thereafter) constituted a detriment within the meaning of section 47B of the Employment Rights Act.
- The withholding of the Termination Payment was done because Mr Seitayev had made protected disclosures (the legally required causal link), rejecting the contention that payment was legitimately deferred “subject to” an investigation outcome.
On the Claimant’s pleaded case, the Tribunal found the employer and Mr Wahid liable. A separate hearing will follow on 17th September 2026 to determine the remedy owed to Mr Seitayev.
