Mr J Singh (legal representative) For the v First Great Western Limited Second Respondent: Mr D Haynes Third Respondent: Mr B White — 2020

This was a preliminary hearing on the claimant's section 47B Employment Rights Act 1996 allegations. The claimant was employed by the first respondent as a Gateline Operative at Paddington Station. The tribunal noted earlier proceedings between the parties, including claims that had been withdrawn following a COT3 settlement, and recorded that the present claim had been presented on 12 December 2018. The respondent applied to strike out part of the whistleblowing case or, alternatively, for a deposit order.\n\nThe tribunal found that the claimant's representative had failed for nearly six months to raise the omission of the section 47B claim from the list of issues, and that this delay was inexcusable. However, it did not accept the respondent's case that the claim had been expressly withdrawn earlier and concluded that the omission was more likely the result of a misunderstanding at the earlier preliminary hearing. The tribunal also held that it would not be proportionate to strike out every remaining allegation, because some of the alleged disclosures could still be investigated fairly, including the 2018 written disclosure and three of the 2012 disclosures said to have been made to Mr Haynes.\n\nThe formal order struck out the claim based on the 2 March 2012 protected disclosure and recorded the claim based on the 16 March 2012 disclosure as withdrawn. In the reasons, the tribunal explained that the first 2012 disclosure was said to have been verbal at a trade union meeting, that none of the respondents or their witnesses were said to have been present, and that requiring the respondent to meet that allegation at this stage would place it at a disproportionately difficult disadvantage. The tribunal also said the claimant had little reasonable prospects of showing that the 2018 written disclosure met section 43B, but that strike out would be too strong a step.\n\nInstead, the tribunal made a deposit order of £150 in respect of the 2018 disclosure allegation. It fixed that amount after finding that the claimant's net monthly income was around £1,500, that he had about £300 disposable income each month, and that he had no savings. The tribunal referred to the public-interest test in section 43B, Chesterton Global Ltd v Nurmohamed, and the strike-out authorities it considered relevant to the applications before it.