Mr P Carlier v Lloyds Bank plc — 2024

The Tribunal held that the unamended ET1 did not contain any matter within the Employment Tribunal's statutory jurisdiction. The allegations in the ET1 concerned concealment of evidence, perjury, dishonesty, breach of data law, perverting the course of justice, breach of Tribunal rules and breach of an earlier disclosure order. The Tribunal found that these were not independent causes of action within its jurisdiction, and that the ET1 did not provide details of any new protected disclosure detriment claim.

The Tribunal found that the substance of the unamended claim was an attempt to overturn or alter the 2015 judgment about the reason for the Claimant's dismissal, so as to obtain a finding that the dismissal was because of protected disclosures. It held that an Employment Tribunal could not set aside an earlier judgment for fraud as a separate common law cause of action, and that if the ET1 had contained claims within jurisdiction they would in any event have been precluded by res judicata principles.

The Tribunal also refused the Claimant's application to amend. It considered the proposed post-termination whistleblowing detriment claim and found that the claimed disclosures and detriments were closely linked to the 2015 judgment and its outcome, that the proposed claim was in substance an attempt to overturn or change that judgment, that most if not all claimed detriments were out of time, and that the claimed detriments did not arise out of and were not closely connected to the employment relationship. Applying Selkent, the Tribunal found that the prejudice to the Respondent in reopening historic matters outweighed the prejudice to the Claimant in not being permitted to run the proposed claims.