Dr Arun Chind v Working on Wellbeing Limited First Respondent Chief Constable of Northumbria Police Second Respondent — 2020

At the public preliminary hearing on 9 January 2020, Employment Judge Johnson sitting alone considered Dr Arun Chind’s claims of automatic unfair dismissal and detriment arising from alleged protected disclosures. The judge treated the question whether the pleaded words and emails amounted to qualifying and protected disclosures as a threshold issue and did not determine the employee/worker status questions, because if the disclosures failed there was no realistic prospect of the claims succeeding.

Applying sections 43A to 43C and the authorities he cited, the judge held that the words said on 20 February 2019, "They are being dishonest", and on 4 March 2019, "You can’t have a contract to give fake reports to the police", did not disclose information with sufficient factual content or specificity. He found they were allegations or expressions of opinion rather than disclosures of information capable of tending to show a criminal offence or breach of a legal obligation. He also rejected the claimant’s broader arguments based on fraud, fiduciary duty, professional integrity, and the Police Conduct Regulations.

The judge further found that the alleged 4 March 2019 email to Lucy Wright had been incorrectly addressed and was unlikely to have been received. He noted that the claimant had multiple opportunities to identify the disclosures relied on, including after the case management hearing and in later particulars, but was still unable to identify an email that contained the alleged wording. Even if amendment were allowed, the alternative wording relied on was still not enough to amount to a qualifying disclosure. The protected disclosure claims were therefore struck out and dismissed under Rule 37 for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The claimant’s own application to strike out the respondents’ responses for alleged non-disclosure was not granted. The judge found no breach of the earlier disclosure orders and said that, at most, the tribunal would likely have considered specific disclosure or an unless order rather than striking out the responses. The judgment records that the respondents’ strike-out application was dealt with first with the claimant’s agreement, and that this was the ground on which the case was determined.