In person For the v Respondent — 2022

At an open preliminary hearing on 10 June 2022, the tribunal considered the respondent's application for strike out and, alternatively, deposit orders in the three joined cases. It declined to strike out the claims based on non-compliance with orders or lack of active pursuit, accepting the claimant's explanation that ill-health and family stress had limited his ability to respond, and instead made an unless order requiring the requested information by 4 pm on 17 June 2022.

The tribunal struck out the s.47B ERA 1996 protected disclosure detriment claim and the claim for “other payments” as having no reasonable prospect of success. It held that dismissal cannot itself be a detriment for the purposes of s.47B, and that the claimed loss and personal injury were not self-standing claims but would, if at all, arise within the unfair dismissal and discrimination claims. It also refused the respondent's strike out and deposit application on the breach of contract claim, finding the claimant's construction of the probation-extension clause was arguable on the wording of the contract.

The direct sex, race and age discrimination claims were not struck out, but the tribunal said it had serious misgivings about their prospects and ordered £500 deposits for each claim as a condition of continuing them. It noted that the claimant had not identified a comparator or a basis for saying the probation extension and systems access decisions were acts of discrimination, but declined to strike the claims out because the full facts were not yet known. The automatic unfair dismissal claim under s.103A ERA 1996 was also not struck out, but a £500 deposit was ordered because the respondent had raised performance concerns before any alleged disclosures and it was considered unlikely that the respondent knew of any third-party disclosure before 11 August 2020.