Case 1300129/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr T Hancox In person v Ms Minette Batters & Ms Sarb Heer Ms J Shepherd – Counsel — 2021
- Case reference
- 1300129/2021
- Decision date
- 22 April 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hindmarch RESERVED
- Venue
- Birmingham
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr T Hancox In person
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe open preliminary hearing on 7 May 2021, conducted by CVP and later reserved, concerned strike-out applications in the claims against Ms Minette Batters and Ms Sarb Heer. The claimant applied to adjourn and argued that the hearing was not properly constituted, but Employment Judge Hindmarch refused to adjourn, held that the hearing had been listed with reasonable notice and could be heard by a judge sitting alone under Rules 54 and 55, and declined to recuse himself despite his previous involvement in related proceedings.
In the claim against Ms Batters, the tribunal noted that the claimant had ticked unfair dismissal on the ET1 but accepted in submissions that he did not intend to bring such a claim. The judge held that Ms Batters was not the employer, so any unfair dismissal claim was misconceived. The substance of the case was treated as a whistleblowing detriment claim based on alleged failure to escalate, investigate, or otherwise act on the claimant's letter, but the tribunal held that no causation was pleaded and that the complaint was plainly out of time because the claimant knew by 30 July 2020 that Ms Batters had forwarded the letter to HR and had not acted as he wanted.
In the claim against Ms Heer, the tribunal accepted that when the first claim was issued in June 2020 the claimant had not yet received the notes he later relied on. It nevertheless held that the earlier claim had been validly withdrawn at the interim relief hearing on 27 August 2020, that it came to an end under Rules 51 and 52, and that the claimant could not resile from that withdrawal. To the extent the later claim relied on different notes and new evidence, the tribunal held it was still out of time because the claimant had the documents by August 2020, was aware by September and October 2020 that he might bring a new claim, but did not start ACAS early conciliation until December 2020 or issue proceedings until January 2021. The respondents' strike-out applications were therefore granted.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | ET1 box ticked against Ms Batters; the tribunal held she was not the employer and the claimant said he did not intend to bring this claim. | Struck out | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | Claim against Ms Batters alleging whistleblowing detriment for failing to escalate, investigate, or act on the claimant's correspondence to the NFU; the tribunal found no pleaded causation and held it out of time. | Struck out | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | Claim against Ms Heer alleging whistleblowing detriment based on later-discovered notes; the tribunal held the earlier claim had been validly withdrawn and, in any event, the new claim was out of time. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
9 references- Rule 54 Employment Tribunals Rules 2013
- Rule 55 Employment Tribunals Rules 2013
- Rule 37 Employment Tribunals Rules 2013
- Rule 51 Employment Tribunals Rules 2013
- Rule 52 Employment Tribunals Rules 2013
- Barber v Staffordshire Council
- Ako v Rothschild Asset Management Ltd
- Ezsias v North Glamorgan NHS Trust
- s.118 Employment Rights Act 1996
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.