Case 1401550/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Ilsley v Swisco Ltd — 2024
- Case reference
- 1401550/2022
- Decision date
- 28 May 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge P Cadney Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Ilsley
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal considered the claimant's application to revoke or vary part of an earlier order, specifically paragraph 65, which concerned the tribunal's recording and treatment of an amendment issue. The claimant argued that the tribunal had misunderstood the application as relating to health and safety detriment under s44 ERA 1996 rather than automatic unfair dismissal under s103A ERA 1996.
The judge reviewed the amended particulars of claim and remained of the view that the original understanding was the most natural reading. The judge also considered the alternative position and concluded that, even if the application had been to add an automatic constructive dismissal claim under s103A, the amendment would have been refused because the pleading did not set out the basis of a protected disclosure claim.
The tribunal held that there was no basis for considering that the original decision had a reasonable prospect of being varied or revoked under rule 72(1), and the reconsideration application was refused.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | The tribunal dismissed the claimant's reconsideration application concerning paragraph 65 of an earlier case management order. The issue discussed was whether the claimant had been seeking to amend to add an automatic constructive unfair dismissal claim under s103A ERA 1996; this was not a merits determination of that substantive claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | The judgment also addressed the tribunal's original understanding that the amendment issue concerned health and safety detriment under s44 ERA 1996. The reconsideration application was refused; no remedy was awarded. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- rule 72(1) Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
- s103A ERA 1996
- s44 ERA 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.
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.