Case 2409957/2013 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D P Hoppe v H M Revenue and Customs 2400171/19 — 2018
- Case reference
- 2409957/2013
- Decision date
- 11 April 2018
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Parkin REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D P Hoppe
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe judgment was a preliminary hearing on strike-out and deposit applications in the claimant's later whistleblowing and unfair dismissal litigation. It recorded that the earlier 2013 protected-disclosure detriment claim had already been dismissed for failure to comply with an Unless Order, and that relief from sanction had been refused. The hearing itself focused on whether the later 2015 and 2019 claims could continue in whole or in part.
In the 2015 claim, the tribunal held that the claimant could proceed with ordinary unfair dismissal and automatic unfair dismissal under section 103A. Taking the case at its highest, it accepted that he was employed by HMRC in Crown employment and that five alleged disclosures, as last particularised, were capable of amounting to protected qualifying disclosures made to HMRC personnel. It did not allow an additional January 2010/2011 disclosure to be relied on because that allegation was not sufficiently clear.
The tribunal struck out the separate detriment claims in the 2015 claim. It found the pleaded detriments were too broad and indistinct, often framed as ongoing failures to investigate, to follow procedure, or to address grievances, and it considered that many allegations pre-dated or overlapped the 2013 proceedings. Applying section 48 ERA 1996 and the guidance in Blackbay Ventures v Gahir, it concluded that those detriment claims had no reasonable prospect of success.
In the 2019 claim, the tribunal struck out the claims against MyCSP, Health Management Ltd and the Minister for the Civil Service. It held that MyCSP and HML were service providers to the Cabinet Office rather than agents of HMRC on the material before it, and that the Minister was too remote and not the proper respondent on the pleaded case. The tribunal was not prepared at that stage to strike out the claim against HMRC and the Cabinet Office, and it declined to make deposit orders. It also directed that the 2017 claim could be lifted from stay and that the related claims should be case-managed further together.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | In the 2015 claim, the tribunal struck out the separate detriment allegations under Part V of the Employment Rights Act 1996. It found the pleaded detriments were too broad and indistinct, many overlapped earlier proceedings, and the timing points engaged section 48 time-limit issues. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal allowed the ordinary unfair dismissal claim and the automatic unfair dismissal claim under section 103A to proceed to a final hearing. No merits finding was made at this stage. | Other | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | In the 2019 claim, the tribunal struck out the claim against MyCSP, Health Management Ltd and the Minister for the Civil Service, but allowed it to continue against HMRC and the Cabinet Office. The outcome is therefore partial rather than final. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
8 references- Rule 37 strike out
- Blackbay Ventures v Gahir
- Divine-Bortey v London Borough of Brent
- s.48 ERA 1996 time limits
- s.103A ERA 1996
- s.47B(1A) ERA 1996
- London Borough of Harrow v Knight
- McTigue v University Hospital Bristol NHS Foundation Trust
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 4 PDF on gov.uk
Published on gov.uk under the .
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.