Mr J Sinclair v Carolina House Trust — 2021

At the preliminary hearing in Dundee on 12 April 2021, the tribunal dealt with the claimant’s application to amend and the respondent’s applications for strike out and a deposit order. It allowed the claimant’s further particulars to be received as an amendment to the claim form, and refused both the strike out and deposit applications.

The tribunal held that the further particulars expanded the original public interest disclosure pleading rather than introducing a wholly new cause of action. It noted that the original papers already referred to matters such as performance management and dismissal, and that the later allegations about timing, repayment of lunch time and the reference were closely connected to the case already pleaded. In applying Selkent, Ali, Abercrombie and Bryant, it concluded that any time-limit point did not strongly favour refusal and that the balance of hardship favoured allowing the amendment.

On strike out, the tribunal applied Rule 37 and the authorities on fact-sensitive claims, including Anyanwu, Ezsias, Tayside Public Transport, Ukegheson, Ahir and Mechkarov. It considered the claimant’s oral explanation alongside the written pleading, including his account of pandemic-related risks, staff concerns, and risks to service recipients and his family, and held that there was just enough material to amount to an arguable disclosure of information and public interest belief. It also referred to Cavendish Munro and Chesterton in assessing the whistleblowing elements.

The tribunal refused a deposit order under Rule 39. It held that the claim was not shown to have little reasonable prospects of success and that the disputed facts would need evidence. It also took account of the claimant’s financial position, including monthly income just over £2,000 and regular outgoings of rent, council tax, fuel, food and travel, in concluding that a deposit order was not appropriate.