Mr M Tang v University of Glasgow — 2026

At an open preliminary hearing, Employment Judge E Mannion considered the respondent's applications to strike out Mr Tang's whistleblowing detriment and other-payments claims. The tribunal struck out the claim under Section 47B of the Employment Rights Act 1996 for having no reasonable prospect of success. It declined to strike out the other-payments claim, refused a deposit order and directed that the claim proceed to a two-day hearing that would also determine Mr Tang's employee or worker status.

Taking the whistleblowing case at its highest, the tribunal determined that an email of 19 May 2025 might amount to a protected disclosure. The February 2023 email chain had no reasonable prospect of constituting a disclosure made by Mr Tang because it was correspondence between two University employees and he was neither a sender nor a recipient. Mr Tang no longer relied on the 8 July 2025 email to Christine Barr, and the tribunal did not determine whether the unavailable initiating email reflected in Dr Sumi David's response amounted to a protected disclosure.

Each alleged detriment was found to have no reasonable prospect of success. Mr Tang's claim form, correspondence and earlier acknowledgment recorded that there had been no agreement to pay wages for work after 31 January 2025, so there was no reasonable prospect of establishing that payment had been refused because of a protected disclosure. His University email access ended when his affiliate or honorary contract ended in August or September 2025, with nothing suggesting that this was other than an administrative consequence of the contract ending. Information from his complaint was shared with departments involved in investigating it, and he did not dispute that those departments required the information for that purpose.

Applying the guidance on strike-out, including the requirement to take the case at its highest through the prism of reality and the special care required in whistleblowing cases, the tribunal found no outstanding particulars or amendment that would assist the protected-disclosure claim. At the discretionary stage, it concluded that striking out the claim was consistent with proportionality and the overriding objective.

The other-payments claim involved material factual disputes requiring evidence, including Mr Tang's legal status after 31 January 2025, what work he performed, whether payment was due and, if so, its basis and amount. Although the tribunal identified weaknesses arising from his earlier statements that the work was voluntary and undertaken without an expectation of financial payment, it also recorded his reliance on a consortium agreement, an alleged umbrella contract or redeployment plan, assigned tasks and a schedule of hours. The claim therefore had neither no reasonable prospect nor little reasonable prospect of success, so it survived strike-out and no deposit was ordered.