In person For the v R1 – Mr Hayes - Solicitor R2 - Mr Green – Counsel R3 – Ms Higgins - Counsel — 2019

At a preliminary hearing on 12 July 2019, Employment Judge Martin considered the respondents' application to strike out the claimant's whistleblowing case, or alternatively to make a deposit order, in relation to the letter dated 5 July 2018. The judge set out the statutory framework under s47B(1), s43B and s43C ERA 1996 and referred to Cavendish Munro, Korashi, Kraus, Chesterton Global, Parsons and Simpson.

The claimant said the letter disclosed alleged criminality, including unqualified agency workers being placed in positions of trust, overbilling, money being skimmed, data protection issues, underpayment, breach of contract and financial irregularity. The tribunal examined the passages individually and then the letter as a whole, and concluded that they were largely allegations, concerns or assumptions rather than disclosures of information tending to show a criminal offence. The judge also held that the material was not shown to be in the public interest and described the letter, on an educated impression, as self-serving.

The tribunal found there was no reasonable prospect of the claimant establishing that the letter was a protected disclosure. It also found little reasonable prospect of showing that the disclosure had been made to a relevant person within s43C, noting that the claimant was employed by the second respondent but had made the disclosure to employees of the first respondent. The whistleblowing claim was therefore struck out, and the judgment records that the first and third respondents were dismissed and removed from the proceedings, while the claimant's wrongful dismissal and holiday pay claims were left to be considered separately.