In Person v Respondent — 2024

The claimant presented this claim on 31 August 2023 and ticked the disability discrimination and whistleblowing boxes. He sought directions or recommendations about an occupational injury allowance decision and ill-health early retirement from active membership of the pension scheme. The respondent applied to strike out the claim under Rule 37(1)(a), saying the substance of the complaints had already been litigated in case 1402514/2021, which had been dismissed as out of time at a preliminary hearing on 4 April 2023.

The tribunal accepted that position. It held that the present claim had no reasonable prospects of success because, insofar as the matters were justiciable in the Employment Tribunal at all, they had already been dealt with in the earlier proceedings. The judge applied the principles of res judicata, including cause of action estoppel, issue estoppel and Henderson abuse of process, and said that the whistleblowing point should have been raised in the earlier case if it was to be pursued. The judge also found that there was nothing substantively new in the Environment Agency Pension Fund letter of 14 August 2023.

On the underlying facts, the judgment recorded the compromise agreement dated 11 October 2016, a termination payment of £51,914 including an £18,000 relocation payment, and the claimant's switch from active to deferred pension membership from 30 November 2016. The June 2016 occupational health report did not support ill-health retirement, whereas later medical support emerged only in 2019, after the claimant had become a deferred member. The judge said disputes about the operation of the pension scheme after termination were not apt for the Employment Tribunal. The claim was therefore struck out, and no monetary award was made.