Case 2205706/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S Buchanan v Moore Kingston Smith Group Services Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 2205706/2020
- Decision date
- 1 June 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge N Walker Representation
- Venue
- by CVP
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr S Buchanan
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the CVP hearing on 28 May 2021, Employment Judge N Walker considered strike-out applications in relation to alleged protected disclosures. The tribunal struck out only the claimant's sixth disclosure allegation, which concerned Lucian Burcea allegedly disclosing information to the claimant about work for Big Wave media. The tribunal held that protected disclosures for the purpose of section 103A require a disclosure made by the employee claiming the protection, and that this allegation was not, on its face, a disclosure made by the claimant.
The tribunal rejected the claimant's reliance on Billsborough v Berry Marketing Services as materially different and not binding in this case. It declined to strike out the other alleged disclosures, including allegations involving emails, oral conversations, WhatsApp traffic, and the GDPR-training issue, because there were concerns about incomplete disclosure and those matters were better determined at a full merits hearing. On the eighth disclosure, the tribunal reinstated the word "likely" in the issues list, accepting that the claimant as a litigant in person may not have distinguished it from "might".
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | Preliminary strike-out decision only. The struck-out allegation was the sixth disclosure, said to arise from Lucian Burcea disclosing information to the claimant about work for Big Wave media. The tribunal held that, on its face, this was not a disclosure made by the claimant. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- s.103A ERA 1996
- s.43 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.