Mr B. Barko v Lea Interchange Bus Company Limited t/a Stage Coach — 2026

At the open preliminary hearing, the claimant confirmed that he was not pursuing unfair dismissal because he had been reinstated, and was not pursuing a breach of contract claim relating to unpaid holiday pay because his holiday pay had been paid. The tribunal therefore considered whether the remaining harassment and protected disclosure detriment claims should be struck out, made subject to deposit orders, or required amendment.

The tribunal refused the claimant's October 2025 amendment application. It found that the proposed whistleblowing allegations about safety and data handling concerns were new matters raised about ten months after the claim form, were substantially out of time, lacked the detail required by the earlier case management order, and had not been explained as late amendments.

The tribunal struck out the harassment claim because the claimant had not identified any protected characteristic under the Equality Act 2010. It also struck out the protected disclosure detriment claim because the claimant had not provided the required details of any protected disclosure, including the relevant section 43B category, recipient, method of disclosure, or public interest basis.