Case 2410203/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D McManus v Distrelec Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 2410203/2022
- Decision date
- 12 July 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge R Mellor REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D McManus
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal held a preliminary hearing on 27 June 2023 to decide whether six alleged disclosures in emails sent between 4 and 6 October 2022 were protected disclosures for the purposes of the claimant’s whistleblowing case. No oral evidence was taken. The tribunal proceeded on the emails themselves and the largely undisputed background, and applied the strike-out and deposit-order authorities in rule 37 and rule 39, including A v B, Hedman v Ishmail, Cox v Adecco, Ezias, Shestak, Mechkarov, and the public-interest guidance in Kilrane and Chesterton.
It struck out the allegations based on email 1 at 3:02pm on 4 October 2022, email 3 at 6:36pm on 4 October 2022, and email 4 at 7:41am on 5 October 2022. In each case the tribunal held that the email did not convey sufficient information tending to show a relevant legal breach within section 43B ERA 1996. It found that email 1 was an allegation of insubordination without sufficient factual content, email 3 was the claimant explaining why he had removed admin privileges, and email 4 was a comment on Christin Seibert’s qualifications rather than a qualifying disclosure.
The tribunal did not strike out email 2 at 5:14pm on 4 October 2022 or email 5 at 12:04pm on 5 October 2022, but it held that both had little reasonable prospect of success on the public-interest element and made a £1,000 deposit order in respect of each allegation. Email 2 referred to the claimant’s physical and mental wellbeing and could at its highest amount to a health and safety disclosure, but the tribunal considered it to arise from a private workplace dispute. Email 5 repeated earlier allegations and linked them to budget risks, but again the tribunal considered the public-interest case weak.
Email 6 at 8:58am on 6 October 2022, headed "Report of suspicion of serious criminal activity", was allowed to proceed to the full hearing. The tribunal said it contained enough detail to require exploration on full evidence, and that the full merits hearing would consider the claimant’s automatic unfair dismissal claim under section 103A ERA 1996 and detriment claim under section 47B ERA 1996. The claimant had said this was the main driver of the case.
Claims and outcomes
6 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 | Email 1, sent on 4 October 2022 at 3:02pm, was alleged to be a protected disclosure under section 43B(1)(b) ERA 1996. The tribunal held that it did not convey sufficient information tending to show a breach of a legal obligation and that there was no reasonable prospect of showing a public-interest belief; it was struck out as having no reasonable prospect of success. | Struck out | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | Email 2, sent on 4 October 2022 at 5:14pm, referred to the claimant’s physical and mental wellbeing and was treated as potentially capable of amounting to a section 43B(1)(d) disclosure. The tribunal held that the public-interest element had little reasonable prospect of success and made a £1,000 deposit order, but it was not struck out. | Other | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | Email 3, sent on 4 October 2022 at 6:36pm, was said to disclose a breach of contractual obligations by Ms Brown. The tribunal found it was a justification of the claimant’s actions, not a disclosure of information tending to show a legal breach, and there was no reasonable prospect of satisfying the public-interest test; it was struck out. | Struck out | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | Email 4, sent on 5 October 2022 at 7:41am, commented on Christin Seibert’s qualifications and on the claimant’s view that she was not a Paid Acquisition Expert. The tribunal held that this did not disclose information tending to show a failure to comply with a legal obligation and struck it out. | Struck out |
Legal tests applied
12 references- rule 37(1)(a) Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013
- rule 39(1)-(2) Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013
- section 43B ERA 1996
- A v B and anor 2011 ICR D9 CA
- Hedman v Ishmail and anor 2017 ICR 486 EAT
- Cox v Adecco and ors 2021 ICR 1307 EAT
- Ezias v North Glamorgan NHS Trust 2007 ICR 1126
- Shestak v Royal College of Nursing and ors
- Mechkarov v Citibank NA 2016 ICR 1121 EAT
- Kilrane v London Borough of Wandsworth 2016 IRLR 422 EAT
- Chesterton Global Ltd v Nurmohamed 2018 ICR 731 CA
- Dobbie v Felton 2021 IRLR 679
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.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
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.