Worldline subsidiary PAYONE finds itself embroiled in a growing controversy surrounding its attempts to silence a whistleblower alleging “eyebrow-raising practices” within the company. Payone says it spent over £700,000 pursuing an permanent injunction, often referred to as a “gagging order,” against a former employee who brought these concerns to light. This legal action followed an earlier January 2023 attempt to silence the whistleblower with a substantial financial offer, described as a “large cash amount,” in exchange for withdrawing protected disclosures made to prominent regulatory bodies, including the FCA, BaFin, and the Pensions Regulator.
The whistleblower, however, refused this inducement after seeking independent legal advice, which confirmed that accepting such an offer would likely be impermissible. This refusal appears to have triggered actions by Payone, escalating the legal battles and entangling Worldline Merchant Services Frankfurt-based sister division in a protracted and ongoing conflict that has swayed through the UK County Courts, High Courts, Employment Tribunals and even the Court of Appeal. The parties are currently involved in five separate legal proceedings, including a challenge to the injunction before the European Court of Human Rights.
Adding to the controversy, the lawyers facilitating this questionable offer, Orrick UK’s team, were found in August 2024 by their regulator, the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA), to have breached public trust and confidence in the legal profession. The SRA determined that Orrick’s conduct in orchestrating the proposed terms of the offer to the initially unrepresented whistleblower was improper and raised serious ethical concerns.
A recent judgment handed down on 6 December 2024 sheds further light on Payone’s attempts to suppress the whistleblower’s allegations. The judgment explicitly states:
“Mr Logo was employed by Payone GMBH. Mr Logo was concerned about certain business practices and therefore made various complaints and disclosures. His employment came to an end and he became embroiled in litigation in the employment tribunal, the County Court, the High Court, and the Court of Appeal. The parties entered into settlement negotiations, but as part of those settlement negotiations, Payone sought a requirement that Mr Logo would withdraw various complaints he had made to regulators about Payone. As part of the settlement process Payone agreed that they would pay £500 plus VAT for Mr Logo to obtain independent legal advice on the settlement. Mr Logo went to Mr Spencer Keen, a barrister on a direct access basis. Mr Keen’s advice was that the clause concerning the withdrawing of complaints from regulators was impermissible. Payone disagreed and the settlement negotiations went no further.”
It is notable that, approximately three months after the whistleblower’s refusal, Payone sought a High Court injunction and was granted a successful interim order on 19 May 2023.
Adding to Payone’s woes, the company was also hit with a separate regulatory ban on transactions in July 2023 due to “serious deficiencies” in its anti-money laundering (AML) processes. This regulatory action underscores the potential validity of the whistleblower’s initial concerns and raises questions about the Payone compliance culture at the time.
