Mr S Crosswell v Hillcrest (UK) Limited (in Creditors’ Voluntary Liquidation) and 1 other — 2021

Rule 21 judgment was entered for the claimant against Hillcrest (UK) Limited because the first respondent had effectively not contested the claim and the liquidator confirmed that no representations would be made; the second respondent had presented no response. The tribunal recorded that the claimant had been employed as a salesman from 20 March 1998 to 23 December 2019 and had made protected disclosures about the lack of insurance for medical expenses, the demands for reimbursement after his Costa Rica accident, and related matters.

The tribunal accepted the claimant's account that he suffered detriments because of those disclosures, including non-payment of pension contributions and bonus, and that he was dismissed for making protected disclosures. Judgment was therefore entered for automatic unfair dismissal for having made a protected disclosure against the first respondent, protected disclosure detriment against both respondents, and breach of contract against the first respondent. The dismissal complaint against Janet Lee was recorded as protected disclosure detriment with respect to dismissal.

The tribunal also noted that the claimant was not required to attend a disciplinary hearing within section 10(1)(a) of the Employment Relations Act 1999, so the right to be accompanied did not apply, and that a complaint about written reasons under sections 92 and 93 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 would require a request under section 92. Because the claimant succeeded on his primary protected-disclosure dismissal case, his alternative redundancy argument did not succeed. Remedy was left to a hearing on 14 December 2021 before a judge sitting alone.