Mr B Bhurabhai v Bucherer UK Limited RECONSIDERATION — 2022

This was a reconsideration judgment in proceedings brought by Mr B Bhurabhai against Bucherer UK Limited. The tribunal varied its earlier judgment only to reduce the amount required to be paid under the deposit order to £100 and to amend paragraph 2.1.1.1 of the List of Issues so that it referred to WhatsApp messages to Hoda Michael in September 2021 and emails to Adrian Maronneau, Richard Clement and Hoda Michael in September and October 2021 relating to LinkedIn posts by Martin Boulden. Subject to those changes, the remainder of the claimant's application was refused.

On the request to postpone the hearing, the tribunal held that there was no reasonable prospect of revoking the decision not to grant a postponement. It said that judges do not generally receive papers until the day before, or the morning of, a hearing, that it had been able to read the documents it was directed to, and that written submissions were not ordered and were not required in order to make submissions. It was satisfied that it understood the representations made by the claimant's representative.

The tribunal also refused to revoke the decision to make a deposit order and refused the amendment application in full. It found that the documents repeatedly relied on were allegations of wrongdoing that had not been communicated to the respondent and were therefore not protected disclosures. It said that making disclosures to the tribunal was not relevant to the whistleblowing claim, and that it was not the tribunal's role to investigate the alleged wrongdoings.

The tribunal rejected reliance on 'home invasions and gang stalking' as a detriment because the claimant had not linked the CCTV incidents to the respondent or to any protected disclosure. It also refused specific disclosure of the employer's liability insurance certificates, the commercial agreement between the respondent and Rolex, and the respondent's accounts because those documents were not relevant to the issues before the tribunal. The judgment noted that parts of the reconsideration request were outside the scope of reconsideration, including complaints about tribunal staff, alleged data breaches, tribunal administration, bundle preparation, non-compliance with case management orders, and the interim relief application.