In person v Respondent — 2024

This was a preliminary hearing before Employment Judge Bansal (sitting alone) at Watford by CVP on 26 July 2024 to consider the respondent's strike-out and deposit applications. The claimant, formerly Sales & Quality Director of his family's company, was summarily dismissed for gross misconduct in June 2023 following an incident on 30 May 2023 in which he was alleged to have been verbally abusive to the Managing Director (his father) after being told of a proposed sale and restructure of the business. The claimant brought complaints of ordinary unfair dismissal and automatic unfair dismissal for making a protected disclosure (an email sent on 1 June 2023 to the complaints portal of the respondent's accountants alleging malpractice, negligence and conspiracy to commit fraud).

On the whistleblowing complaint, the tribunal concluded that, taking the claimant's case at its highest, he had not established that the email amounted to a qualifying disclosure under s43B ERA 1996: he had not identified the specific legal obligation he had in mind, and on his own evidence he had not researched the relevant law until after issuing the claim. Applying Ahir v British Airways plc [2017] EWCA Civ 1392, the judge struck out the complaint under Rule 37(1)(a) as having no reasonable prospect of success and declined to impose a less draconian sanction.

On the ordinary unfair dismissal complaint, the tribunal made a preliminary assessment by reference to British Home Stores Ltd v Burchell and s98(4) ERA 1996. The judge considered there was sufficient evidence for the respondent to show conduct as the reason for dismissal and that, although no formal procedure had been followed, the claimant had little reasonable prospect of persuading a tribunal that dismissal fell outside the band of reasonable responses. Taking account of the claimant's dire financial position, the judge ordered a deposit not exceeding £50 under Rule 39 as a condition of continuing with the complaint.