Case 1801980/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A M Ashu v Single Resource Ltd HELD in Leeds — 2022
- Case reference
- 1801980/2022
- Decision date
- 9 September 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Brain REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A M Ashu
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a preliminary hearing on 30 August 2022, Employment Judge Brain held that the claimant's complaints in the schedule could not be said to have no reasonable prospect of success. The tribunal therefore refused to strike out the claims under Rule 37(1)(a) of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013.
The tribunal also held that the complaints could not be said to have little reasonable prospect of success, so it refused to order a deposit under Rule 39. The hearing was limited to that procedural question and did not determine the merits.
The schedule identified two whistleblowing-related claims. One was that the claimant had been constructively dismissed because he made protected disclosures, bringing the claim under section 103A of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The other was that he was subjected to detriment because he made the disclosures, bringing the claim under section 47B of the 1996 Act. The judgment also records that the issues included whether the disclosures referred to in paragraphs 19.1 and 19.2 of the case management summary dated 24 June 2022 were protected disclosures.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive dismissal | Preliminary hearing only. The tribunal refused to strike out the claim under Rule 37(1)(a) because it could not be said to have no reasonable prospect of success, and refused a deposit order under Rule 39 because it could not be said to have little reasonable prospect of success. The merits were not finally determined. | Other | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | Preliminary hearing only. The tribunal refused to strike out the detriment claim under Rule 37(1)(a) and refused a deposit order under Rule 39. The merits were not finally determined. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- Rule 37(1)(a) no reasonable prospect of success
- Rule 39 little reasonable prospect of success
- section 103A ERA 1996
- section 47B 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.