In person For the v Respondent — 2020

Ms A Logan-Overy began work for Richard Watts and the City of Rochester Almshouse Charities on 10 January 2017 as a Home Help/Domestic Assistant. The respondent terminated her employment on 11 December 2018, saying it was dismissal without notice for misconduct. The tribunal granted her application to amend the ET1 so that the respondent name matched the ACAS Early Conciliation certificate, and noted that she did not have two years' qualifying service for an ordinary unfair dismissal claim.

The tribunal then found that the ET1 and the claimant's later further particulars did not set out a case the Trust could sensibly answer. It was not told what protected disclosures were alleged, to whom or when they were made, what detriments were said to follow, or what sums were claimed for wrongful dismissal, holiday pay, arrears of pay or other payments. The further particulars referred to matters including harassment, Employment Law, GDPR, Charity Commission, safeguarding, slander, loss of earnings, working tax credit, pension impact and private work, but those references were not accompanied by the necessary dates, calculations or pleading detail.

Applying the statutory whistleblowing provisions and the rule 12 and rule 37 authorities, the tribunal held that the claim form should have been rejected under rule 12(1)(b) because the respondent could not sensibly respond. It did not strike the case out as vexatious or for non-compliance, but concluded that the claims, including the monetary claims, had no reasonable prospect of success and struck them out under rule 37(1)(a). No deposit order was made and no remedy was awarded.