Mr K Chima v Cegedim E-Business Ltd — 2024

At this preliminary hearing, Employment Judge Slater dealt with the respondent's renewed strike-out application and the claimant's application to amend his case to constructive unfair dismissal. The amendment was refused. The tribunal then considered strike out on the basis of no reasonable prospects of success, taking the claimant's case at its highest and relying on the particulars of claim, the clarification of issues and the claimant's written submissions.

The unfair dismissal complaint under s.103A ERA 1996 was struck out. The tribunal accepted that the claimant's 29 September 2023 letter was ambiguous about whether he had resigned, but held that the alleged protected disclosures could not amount to protected disclosures in law. It found that the dog-related complaints were private matters rather than disclosures made in the public interest, that PD1 was not established as a factual matter, and that PD3-PD6 about voice recordings did not give rise to a reasonable prospect of showing a breach of legal obligation.

The protected disclosure detriment complaints were also struck out for the same reason. The tribunal held that, because none of the disclosures had reasonable prospects of being proved to be protected disclosures, the detriment complaints based on those disclosures could not succeed.

The direct and indirect race discrimination complaints were not struck out. The tribunal said the direct race discrimination allegations, brought by a claimant identified as a Black Nigerian African man, had little reasonable prospect of success and were made subject to a separate deposit order, but it could not conclude at the preliminary stage that they had no reasonable prospect of success. It also refused to strike out the indirect discrimination complaints, noting possible difficulties about whether there was a PCP and whether group disadvantage could be shown, but again concluding that the evidence needed to be heard.

The tribunal found that the claimant had been rude and obstructive in aspects of the proceedings, including his approach to email correspondence and his claim not to have received documents, but it did not find that his conduct had yet made a fair hearing impossible. It said this amounted to a warning that continued obstruction could lead to strike out at a later stage.