In person For the v Respondent — 2022

This was a reconsideration hearing before Employment Judge George on 21 January 2022. The claimant appeared in person and applied for a postponement because his consultant psychiatrist had diagnosed Mixed Anxiety Depression and Complex PTSD, with recent referral for EMDR and medication. The judge accepted that the claimant became unwell during the hearing, stopped the live hearing when it became clear he could not continue, and then dealt with the postponement and reconsideration applications in writing.

The underlying claim was presented on 23 February 2021 and was said to concern post-employment detriment on the basis of protected disclosure. The claimant said the disclosure was made by email on 14 November 2020 to the respondent's legal representative. The claim form relied on an early conciliation certificate issued on 26 August 2018, and the claimant expressly stated that he did not believe the claim was the same matter as the earlier claim, but had used the old ACAS number to protect his position.

Applying section 18A of the Employment Tribunals Act 1996, Rule 12 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013, Compass Group UK & Ireland Ltd v Morgan, and the earlier EAT decision in Akhigbe v St Edward Homes Limited [2019] ICR D6, the judge held that the 2020 complaint was not related to the 2018 conciliation dispute. He accepted that Rule 12(1)(c) did not apply because a certificate number had been included, but found that presenting the claim on a certificate that did not relate to the matter was an abuse of process under Rule 12(1)(b) and section 18A(8). He therefore refused reconsideration of the rejection of the claim.

The judge also noted that a separate, similar claim with a 2021 early conciliation certificate had been accepted and was proceeding elsewhere, so he treated the present case as a duplicate. No award was made and the merits of any whistleblowing allegation were not determined in this judgment; the postponement application was refused because the underlying rejection was upheld and no prejudice arose from proceeding in writing.