Case 2600493/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr. P Broster v R.E.A.L Education Ltd — 2021
- Case reference
- 2600493/2021
- Decision date
- 13 December 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Heap Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr. P Broster
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr P Broster brought claims against R.E.A.L Education Ltd arising from the termination of his employment connected to his daughter LB's home-based educational placement. At the preliminary hearing on 25 November 2021, the tribunal recorded that the wrongful dismissal complaint had been withdrawn and dismissed under Rule 52. The remaining claims were unfair dismissal, automatically unfair dismissal for protected disclosures, detriment under s.47B ERA 1996, direct disability discrimination by association, victimisation, and harassment related to disability.
Applying Rule 37, the tribunal refused to strike out the unfair dismissal, s.103A whistleblowing, s.47B detriment, victimisation, and harassment complaints entirely, but held that each had little reasonable prospect of success and so made deposit orders under Rule 39. The tribunal accepted that the claimant had been employed to provide home-based learning support for LB, who had complex needs, and that there was a dispute about whether the respondent could continue to meet LB's educational needs. It said the unfair dismissal claim was not doomed at that stage, but any case based on procedural unfairness or alternatives to dismissal appeared difficult because the employment depended on LB's placement.
The tribunal struck out the direct disability discrimination by association complaint because no proper particulars had ever been advanced, despite two preliminary hearings and further and better particulars. It also struck out victimisation complaints based on detriments before 1 September 2020 because they pre-dated the alleged protected act. For the remaining complaints, the tribunal considered the first 1 September 2020 letter did not amount to a protected disclosure, the second letter was more like unstructured allegations, and the February 2021 letters from Nottingham County Council were not sent by the respondent. It fixed the deposit at £10 for each complaint with little reasonable prospect of success, and it refused a stay pending the SEND proceedings.
Claims and outcomes
7 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wrongful dismissal | Withdrawn before the preliminary hearing and dismissed under Rule 52. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Strike-out refused. The tribunal held the claim had little reasonable prospect of success and made a £10 deposit order. | Other | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | Automatically unfair dismissal under s.103A ERA 1996 was not struck out. The tribunal said factual disputes required evidence, but it made a £10 deposit order because the claim had little reasonable prospect of success. | Other | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | The detriment claim under s.47B ERA 1996 relied on two letters dated 1 September 2020. The tribunal said the first was not a protected disclosure and the second was more in the nature of unstructured allegations; it made a £10 deposit order rather than striking the claim out. | Other | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | Direct disability discrimination by association with LB, who was accepted to be disabled within s.6 Equality Act 2010, was struck out because no properly articulated particulars had ever been advanced. | Struck out | Disability | — |
| Victimisation | Acts of detriment before 1 September 2020 were struck out because they pre-dated the alleged protected act. The remaining allegations involving February 2021 Local Authority letters were not struck out, but the tribunal made a £10 deposit order. |
Legal tests applied
14 references- Rule 37 Employment Tribunals (Constitution & Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013
- Rule 39 Employment Tribunals (Constitution & Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013
- Rule 52 Employment Tribunals (Constitution & Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013
- Balls v Downham Market High School and College [2011] IRLR 217
- Anyanwu v South Bank Student Union [2001] ICR 391
- Ezsias v North Glamorgan NHS Trust [2007] ICR 1126
- Ahir v British Airways Plc [2017] EWCA Civ 1392
- Hemdan v Ishmail & Anor 2017 ICR 468
- Norbrook Laboratories (GB) Ltd v Shaw UKEAT/0150/13
- s.43B Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.47B Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.103A Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.6 Equality Act 2010
- s.26 Equality Act 2010
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.