Mr J Gidney, Counsel v Respondent — 2018

This was a preliminary hearing and case management decision, not a final merits judgment. The claimant's pleaded claims at that stage were unfair dismissal, automatic unfair dismissal, public interest disclosure detriment, and failure to provide a written statement of terms and conditions. The tribunal recorded the parties' agreed issues for the later full hearing, but it did not decide liability on those substantive claims in this record.

The only substantive decisions made were procedural. The Employment Judge allowed the claimant's application to amend his claim so that he could bring a public interest disclosure detriment complaint, and also allowed the application to join Mrs Sarah Norman as a respondent to that detriment claim. The reasons note that the application to amend had been agreed by the respondents in correspondence, and both parties consented to the joinder application being determined at the telephone hearing.

The case management summary then set out the issues that would fall to be determined at the full hearing, including the reason for dismissal under section 98 ERA 1996, whether any protected disclosures were made, whether any disclosure was in the public interest, whether any protected disclosure was the principal reason for dismissal, whether the claimant was subjected to detriment for making protected disclosures, and whether he was provided with a written statement of terms and conditions. No findings were made on those issues in this decision.