E.T. Z (WR) EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 4105238/20175 Held in Glasgow on July 2018 Employment Judge: F J Garvie Ms K Niven v Tesco Personal Finance plc — 2018

This was a preliminary hearing on the respondent’s application to strike out the claimant’s only claim, which was framed as public interest disclosure complaints and alleged detriments. The tribunal had previously directed the claimant to provide further and better particulars, and the hearing on 17 July 2018 proceeded on the basis of those particulars and the parties’ written and oral submissions; no evidence was heard.

The respondent argued that the claimant had not identified a protected disclosure within section 43B of the Employment Rights Act 1996, that much of what was pleaded was only an expression of concern or opinion, and that the alleged matters lacked sufficient factual content and public interest to qualify. The tribunal accepted those criticisms. It found that the claimant’s pleadings did not set out specific information, did not clearly identify any breached legal obligation, and did not explain what breach of the Data Protection Act or Health and Safety at Work Act was said to arise.

The tribunal considered each of the pleaded alleged disclosures in turn, including the February, March, May and 16 May 2017 allegations. It held that the pleadings largely amounted to complaints about how matters were handled, personal grievance, or statements that something was “wrong”, “not normal practice”, or at “risk of a miscarriage of justice”, without sufficient detail to show a qualifying disclosure. It also found that the public interest element was not properly made out on the face of the ET1 and further particulars.

Applying Rule 37 and the authorities cited in argument, including Blackbay, Cavendish Munro, Goode, Kilraine and Chesterton, the tribunal concluded that none of the alleged disclosures, taken individually or together, had a reasonable prospect of success. It therefore struck out the claim. No compensation or other remedy was awarded, because the claim did not proceed to a merits determination.