Mr O Nnamuchi v My Care (Grampian) Limited — 2023

At the preliminary hearing on 24 May 2023, the tribunal dealt with the respondent's Rule 37 strike-out application and alternative Rule 39 deposit application after the claimant had been ordered to provide further and better particulars. The respondent also asked the tribunal to consider time bar, but that issue was not determined because the hearing had not been listed for that purpose and the claimant was a litigant in person.

The ordinary unfair dismissal claim was struck out because the claimant had only about two months' service and could not meet the qualifying period. The whistleblowing aspect was also struck out. Applying section 43B of the Employment Rights Act 1996, the tribunal held that the alleged 'xx' added to the claimant's name on payroll documents was, at most, a clerical error, that the pleadings did not show a reasonable belief that the matter was in the public interest or that it tended to show any of the matters listed in section 43B, and that there was no pleaded link between any disclosure and the dismissal. The claimant's point about the P45 arose after termination.

The marriage discrimination claim was struck out because the claimant did not particularise any complaint of discrimination because of marital status, despite being given further opportunity to do so in writing and orally. His references to being married, to his wife having considered the post, and to a criminal court hearing concerning his children did not amount to a pleaded marriage discrimination case. The tribunal applied the usual caution about striking out discrimination claims and claims brought by litigants in person, but still concluded that there was no valid particularised claim.

The tribunal refused to strike out the notice pay and arrears of pay claims, and it also refused the alternative deposit order. It treated those claims as factual disputes requiring evidence, including whether the claimant had been dismissed for gross misconduct and whether sums were outstanding. The claimant's application to strike out the response was also refused because the tribunal found no basis for saying the ET3 or the bundle was vexatious. The remaining claims were listed to proceed, with a preliminary issue of time bar to be addressed at the later hearing.