Mr S Lamb v Wolseley UK Limited — 2021

The tribunal had previously made an unless order requiring the claimant to answer questions identifying the disclosures relied on as protected disclosures, when they were made, to whom they were made, what their substance was, and why they were said to be in the public interest. When the claimant did not provide that information by the date set, a judgment dated 11 August 2021 dismissed what had been described as a whistleblowing detriment complaint.

By a letter dated 18 August 2021, the respondent's solicitors told the tribunal that the claimant had not brought a detriment claim but a whistleblowing dismissal claim under s.103A ERA 1996. Employment Judge Hyams-Parish recorded that this error had not been drawn to the tribunal's attention when the unless order was sent out.

The respondent asked the tribunal to make a new order dismissing the s.103A claim, but that request was refused because the earlier unless order had not referred to a whistleblowing dismissal claim. The tribunal therefore set aside the earlier judgment and issued a new unless order directed to the dismissal claim, giving the claimant a short further window to provide the same information about the protected disclosures relied on. No substantive merits decision or remedy was determined in this judgment.