Mr D Beaumont v Kemin UK Ltd — 2019

Mr D Beaumont worked for Kemin UK Ltd as a Sales Manager from 4 April 2016 until 20 March 2018. His claim form alleged automatic unfair dismissal under section 103A ERA 1996, whistleblowing detriments, and wrongful dismissal. This judgment was a preliminary hearing dealing with parties, amendment, and a deposit order; it did not decide the merits of the substantive claims.

The tribunal refused the claimant's applications to reinstate Kemin Europa NV and Kemin Industries Inc as respondents and to add further respondents Kemin Nutrisurance Europe srl, Mr D Abrate, Ms S Morais, Mr D Beltrami, Dr A Yersin, Mr J May, and M Bertuzzo. Judge Ayre treated the request as an application to amend and applied the relevant balancing exercise under the Presidential Guidance and Selkent v Moore. The proposed additions were said to be new claims against new respondents, were significantly out of time, and were not supported by an adequate explanation for the delay. The tribunal also noted that the claimant had voluntarily withdrawn his claims against Kemin Europa NV and Kemin Industries Inc at the earlier preliminary hearing.

The tribunal also removed Mr Eric Creemers as a respondent. It held that he had not been present or represented when the earlier decision to serve him with the ET1 was made, that the application to join him was out of time, and that the interests of justice favoured removing him because the claim would continue against Kemin UK Ltd. By contrast, the tribunal allowed the claimant to amend his whistleblowing claim to include three further alleged protected disclosures said to have been made on 6 December 2017, 7 December 2017, and 14 December 2017. It held that these were additional factual details to an existing claim, were raised at an early stage, and would not materially lengthen or prejudice the proceedings.

The respondent's application for a deposit order was refused. Although the respondent argued that the dismissal decision pre-dated the alleged protected disclosures in the original claim form, the tribunal held that the newly pleaded disclosures were said to have been made around three months before dismissal and that it could not say at that stage that the claim had little reasonable prospect of success. The tribunal also noted that there were disputed facts requiring evidence. It therefore made no deposit order and listed a further preliminary hearing for case management.