EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 8000903/2025 Held in Glasgow on September 2025 Employment Judge M A Macleod Mr J Holland v Enigmatic Smile Ltd — 2025

This was a preliminary hearing on the respondent's application to strike out the claimant's claims and, alternatively, for a deposit order. The tribunal refused both applications under rule 38 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2024. It held that, at this early stage and before any case management had taken place, it could not say that the claims had no reasonable prospect of success or little reasonable prospect of success, and directed that the case should proceed to a further preliminary hearing for case management.

The claimant's first claim was that he had been automatically unfairly dismissed contrary to section 103A of the Employment Rights Act 1996 because he made a protected disclosure in an email of 24 January 2025. The respondent said the dismissal was for gross misconduct arising from events said to have occurred before that email and relied on the dismissal letter dated 3 February 2025. The tribunal accepted that the claimant may face difficulties, but held that the decision to dismiss post-dated the disclosure and that the claimant should be allowed to argue that the disclosure was an important factor in the dismissal decision.

The claimant's discrimination claims were pleaded more fully in response to the strike-out application. The race claim was based on Irish nationality and on references in the dismissal letter to Ireland and Monserrat. The religion or belief claim was based on the claimant's asserted philosophical belief that Palestine should have the right to self-determination as a state, together with references in the dismissal letter to the Palestine/Israel conflict and alleged chanting. The tribunal said these were matters for evidence and could not be characterised as hopeless at this stage.

In refusing strike out and the deposit order, the tribunal relied on authorities including Ezsias v North Glamorgan NHS Trust, Bennett v Southwark LBC, Ahir v British Airways PLC, Balls v Downham Market High School & College, and Cox v Adecco. It emphasised that strike out is approached with particular care in whistleblowing and discrimination cases, especially where the central facts are disputed and the claimant is a litigant in person. It also noted that the claimant's claims required clarification, but that further case management was the proper way to address those pleading weaknesses.