Case 6000938/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Liepa v Crystal Springs Consumer Division Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 6000938/2024
- Decision date
- 24 March 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Halliday REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Liepa
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary hearing about whether references to the 23 October 2023 meeting and related settlement communications could be relied on at the final hearing of Mr M Liepa's unfair dismissal and disability discrimination claims. The tribunal found that the meeting itself fell within the statutory protection for pre-termination negotiations in s.111A ERA 1996, even though the words "without prejudice" were not used in the meeting and Mr Liepa was not expressly given a separate s.111A explanation at that point.
On the unfair dismissal side, the tribunal rejected the argument that the respondent's conduct was improper. It accepted that Mr Laird intended to put a settlement proposal to Mr Liepa, that the letter handed over explained the proposal and its s.111A protection, and that asking Mr Liepa to read the letter and offering paid time away from the workplace to consider it did not amount to undue pressure. The tribunal also held that stating in the letter that a grievance might lead to disciplinary action was not blackmail or improper conduct, and that there was no failure to take Mr Liepa's mental health into account amounting to improper behaviour.
Separately, for the disability discrimination claim, the tribunal held that the without prejudice rule also applied because there was a relevant dispute between the parties at the time of the meeting. It relied on the earlier disagreement about the Slack message, the informal warning, the appeal describing the process as a "witch hunt", the grievance context, and Mr Laird's evidence that he expected the situation to escalate. The tribunal found the respondent's settlement proposal was a genuine attempt to resolve that dispute, and that there was no unambiguous impropriety. It therefore ruled that references to the 23 October 2023 meeting, the settlement letter, and subsequent without prejudice communications are inadmissible in these proceedings. No merits liability findings or remedy were तय at this hearing.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Preliminary admissibility ruling only. The tribunal held that the 23 October 2023 meeting was protected as pre-termination negotiations under s.111A ERA 1996 and that no improper conduct made it just to admit the meeting or related documents. No substantive merits decision on the dismissal claim was made. | Other | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | Preliminary admissibility ruling only. The tribunal held that the 23 October 2023 meeting and subsequent settlement communications were covered by without prejudice privilege because there was an existing dispute and no unambiguous impropriety. No substantive merits decision on the disability discrimination claim was made. | Other | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- s.111A ERA 1996
- pre-termination negotiations
- without prejudice rule
- unambiguous impropriety
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.