Ms P Melville v London School of Management — 2023

At the preliminary hearing on 10 March 2023, the respondent applied to strike out the claims under rule 37(1)(a) of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013, or alternatively for deposit orders under rule 39. The tribunal clarified the claimant's pleaded claims by reference to the list of issues and applied the usual caution in discrimination and whistleblowing cases, citing Anyanwu, Ezsias, Mechkarov, Cox v Adecco, Twist DX and the need for Meek-compliant reasons. It took the claimant's case at its highest and did not conduct a mini-trial.

On the whistleblowing issues, the tribunal held there was evidence of disclosure of information and rejected the submission that the claims had no reasonable prospects. It said the claimant's explanation of the 20 October 2021 email, including the covid-19 context of PD1, raised factual questions for trial. It also held that the matters relied on by the claimant, including health and safety, data protection, academic integrity and disability discrimination, were the kind of subjects that could be in the public interest, and that the reasonableness of her belief in a relevant failure under sections 43C, 43F and 43G ERA 1996 was a matter for final hearing.

The tribunal also refused to strike out the section 100 ERA health and safety claim, the automatic unfair dismissal claim, the whistleblowing detriment claim, the disability-related harassment claim and the victimisation claim. It said there was an arguable case about toxic fumes and whether the claimant left or avoided an unventilated office, the dismissal chronology from 20 October to 27 November 2021, the alleged 2 November 2021 detriment meeting, and whether PD4 was capable of being a protected act. The respondent's application was dismissed, and no strike out or deposit order was made.