Mr M B Uddin v BGC Technology International Limited — 2020

The tribunal dealt with the First Claim only. It recorded that the Respondent conceded the Claimant was a worker for the purposes of s.43K ERA 1996. The complaint was a single whistleblowing detriment claim under s.47B ERA 1996. The protected disclosure relied on was the Claimant’s report to the ICO on 10 July 2019, and the alleged detriment was an email sent by Mr Snelling on 1 October 2019 asking the Claimant to sign an undertaking and referring to possible injunctive relief and proceedings.

The tribunal considered the statutory tests for qualifying and protected disclosures under ss.43B, 43A and 43C ERA 1996, and the detriment test under s.47B ERA 1996, together with the strike-out power under rule 37(1)(a). It held that the email of 10 July 2019 did allege a breach of the Data Protection Act 1998, but the Claimant had no reasonable prospect of showing that his belief in that alleged breach was reasonable. The tribunal found that the admitted correspondence showed the Claimant had emailed Mrs Patel in her personal capacity for an informal chat, and that there was no reasonable prospect of proving a DPA breach simply because the communication was made by email.

The tribunal also held that there was no reasonable prospect of showing that Mrs Patel’s discussion with Ms Malde could amount to personal data for DPA purposes, or that the alleged disclosure tended to show a miscarriage of justice. On the public interest element, it found the alleged matter was a private office dispute concerning a personal interaction between colleagues, not a matter whose character engaged the public interest. The fact that the complaint was raised more than two years after the events also weighed against the reasonableness of the asserted belief. Because the protected disclosure element was not reasonably arguable, the tribunal struck out the s.47B complaint and did not need to determine causation.

In the alternative, the tribunal said that if it had been wrong to strike out the claim, it would have found the claim had little reasonable prospect of success and would have made a deposit order of £1,000, noting the Claimant’s means. No substantive remedy was awarded.