Mr D Hoppe v 1 HM Revenue & Customs 2 Health Assured Limited 3 National Audit Office 4 Independent Office for Police Conduct — 2018

The claim was presented on 18 August 2017 and, at this preliminary hearing before Employment Judge Tom Ryan, the tribunal considered strike-out issues raised in relation to the non-HMRC respondents. The claimant did not attend, saying he was unable to do so because of stress and anxiety. The tribunal treated his correspondence as written representations after concluding there was no medical evidence that he was unfit to attend and that proceeding on that basis was consistent with the overriding objective.

The claimant had brought complaints of unfair dismissal and detriment for having made protected disclosures. In later correspondence he clarified that he was not bringing a discrimination claim under the Equality Act 2010. The judgment then addressed whether the 3rd and 4th respondents, the National Audit Office and the Independent Office for Police Conduct, could be liable under the protected-disclosure provisions of the Employment Rights Act 1996.

The tribunal held that section 43K ERA 1996 was not engaged. It rejected the claimant's submission that these bodies were, in effect, part of a 'common employer' answerable to Parliament. As to the National Audit Office, the tribunal said the claimant had not shown that he was introduced or supplied to do work by NAO for HMRC, so he could not pass through the statutory gateway in section 43K(1)(a). As to the Independent Office for Police Conduct, the tribunal said there was no basis for the claimant's argument that it was his employer for these purposes.