Mr G Atwal v E.surv Ltd — 2026

This preliminary hearing determined applications to strike out Claim 2 and Claim 3. Both applications were refused. The Tribunal did not determine the substantive merits of the constructive unfair dismissal or whistleblowing complaints and made no monetary award.

For Claim 2, Mr Atwal had presented his first ET1 on 17 November 2024 using the first ACAS certificate and later presented a second ET1 on 24 February 2025 using a second certificate. He had withdrawn the first claim while seeking to streamline his case, but the Tribunal had not formally dismissed it. In the absence of authority, a rule or a regulation prohibiting reliance on the first certificate, the Tribunal did not regard that reliance as a basis for striking out the second claim.

Applying Reynolds v Abel Estate Agent Ltd and others, the Tribunal found that because the claim had passed the initial acceptance gateway, any procedural failure concerning ACAS fell to be addressed through discretionary case-management powers. Strike-out would be a draconian response where the claim had previously been accepted as in time, preparations for the final hearing had progressed and factual disputes remained. The constructive unfair dismissal claim was therefore allowed to proceed, although the respondent's time-limit point concerning the ACAS certificate was left for a later preliminary hearing.

The Working Time Regulations and breach of contract claims in Claim 2 were withdrawn by Mr Atwal at the hearing. The Tribunal recorded that he accepted they were out of time and would otherwise have required an application to extend time, and directed him to confirm the withdrawals in writing if that remained his position.

Claim 3 concerned automatic unfair dismissal for whistleblowing. Although the ET1 did not contain the particulars needed to understand that claim, further and better particulars supplied in June remedied the defect. The Tribunal found that allowing the claim to continue was not an abuse of process and did not find Mr Atwal's conduct vexatious; it also rejected the Henderson v Henderson estoppel argument because the proceedings had not been finally determined. Any required amendment application was reserved for the next preliminary hearing.