Case 1401143/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr. Adrian Simister v Calor Gas Limited and 6 others — 2025
- Case reference
- 1401143/2024
- Decision date
- 1 August 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Bowen Representation
Parties
8 namedClaimant
Mr. Adrian Simister
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt this preliminary hearing before Employment Judge Bowen, the Claimant's application to amend the claim was refused. The tribunal held that no age discrimination claim was pleaded on the ET1/Grounds of Complaint, the proposed belief discrimination claim was also not pleaded, and the oral amendment application was too unclear, too late, and too prejudicial to the Respondents to allow. The judge applied the Selkent balancing exercise and accepted the Respondents' submission that the proposed belief claim lacked sufficient clarity as to the protected belief, the comparators, and the specific factual incidents relied on. The judgment records that the Claimant had identified at least 36 proposed belief discrimination claims against 5 Respondents, but the application remained materially under-particularised.
On the Respondents' strike-out application, the tribunal struck out a number of whistleblowing detriment allegations for having no reasonable prospect of success because they were vague and lacked particulars. The paragraphs struck out included, among others, 10.1-4, 10.7, 10.8, 10.10, 10.11, 10.15-10.19, 10.23, 10.25, 11.19, 12.1, 12.2, 12.3, 12.6, 12.12, 13.1-5, 13.7, 13.9, 13.11, 14.1-14.3, 14.5, 14.8, 15.1-15.3 and 16.1-16.3. The only part of paragraph 13.4 that survived was the complaint of delay between 5 June 2023, when the complaint was raised, and 13 June 2023, when it was responded to. Paragraph 12.15 also survived as a complaint about delay in the first disciplinary hearing. The tribunal declined to strike out the s.44/100 ERA health and safety detriment claim or make a deposit order, because there was a core dispute of fact about whether representatives existed and whether the Claimant could have contacted them.
The tribunal also refused strike out under rule 38(1)(b) and (c) for alleged unreasonable conduct and non-compliance with orders. It found that the Claimant had materially failed to comply with the earlier order to particularise his claims, including the whistleblowing particulars and medical evidence for the schedule of loss, but held that a fair hearing was still possible and that striking out the entire case would be disproportionate. No deposit order was made. The judgment records that the other pleaded heads, including automatic unfair dismissal, wrongful dismissal/breach of contract, and unlawful deductions from wages, were not finally determined at this hearing, and that the case was listed for further case management on 12 September 2025.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | Automatic unfair dismissal/detriment claim arising from protected disclosures. At this preliminary hearing, many whistleblowing detriment allegations were struck out for lack of specificity; paragraph 12.15 survived and paragraph 13.4 survived only as to delay between 5 June 2023 and 13 June 2023. No final merits determination or remedy was made. | Other | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Part of the pleaded PIDA/automatic unfair dismissal case under s.103A ERA 1996. The tribunal did not finally determine this claim at this preliminary hearing and made no strike-out or deposit order against it in this decision. | Other | — | — |
| Other | Health and safety detriment claim under s.44(1)(c) ERA 1996. The tribunal refused strike out and refused a deposit order because there was a core factual dispute about the existence of representatives and whether the Claimant could access them. | Other | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | Pleaded as wrongful dismissal/breach of contract. Not finally determined at this preliminary hearing. | Other | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Unlawful deduction of wages claim, including holiday pay and vehicle-related sums. Not finally determined at this preliminary hearing. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
10 references- Selkent balancing exercise
- Grainger philosophical belief test
- Anyanwu/Ezsias caution on strike out
- Mechkarov strike-out approach
- Ahir v British Airways high threshold
- Blockbuster v James proportionality
- Weir Valves factors
- Vaughan v Modality balance of prejudice
- s.123 EqA 2010 time limit
- Chandhok v Tirkey pleading principle
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.
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.