Mr S Basude v By Written Submissions Scottish Hydro Electric Transmission Pic — 2018

This was a preliminary hearing before Employment Judge Robert Gall on whether passages in the claimant's pleadings and further particulars about meetings on 24 March 2017 and 30 June 2017 should be redacted. The underlying case was a claim of age discrimination and unfair dismissal by Mr S Basude against Scottish Hydro Electric Transmission plc. The respondent argued that the meetings were without prejudice and, for the unfair dismissal claim, protected conversations under section 111A of the Employment Rights Act 1996.

On the 30 June 2017 meeting, the tribunal held that a relevant dispute already existed and that the discussion became without prejudice once the conversation turned to possible termination or settlement. It found no unambiguous impropriety on the facts advanced. The fact that the meeting took place, and the narrower allegation that Mr Scott refused a request to change working arrangements and asked the claimant to continue working with Mr Clark, could remain in the pleadings and be the subject of evidence; anything beyond that was excluded.

On the 24 March 2017 meeting, the tribunal reserved the admissibility question to the full hearing because the parties disputed what was said. It said that if the claimant proved he had been told to go home because he had raised a grievance, that could amount to unambiguous impropriety and potentially support a victimisation allegation under section 27 of the Equality Act 2010; if that remark was not proved, the discussion would be without prejudice and excluded. The tribunal also declined to redact the references in the paper apart to paragraphs 19 and 20 of the ET1, finding no basis for their exclusion.