EAT Victimisation Discrimination : Whistleblowing – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
Striking-out/dismissal
Imposition of deposit
The Employment Judge struck out all but one aspect of the Claimant’s claim of public interest disclosure detriment. In respect of the sixth alleged public interest disclosure the reasons given were wrong in law; moreover it could not be said that the Claimant’s claim in respect of the sixth public interest disclosure had no reasonable prospects of success. The appeal against the striking out order was accordingly allowed.
The Employment Judge also made a deposit order in respect of the fifth alleged public interest disclosure. When the Claimant did not pay this deposit order apparently believing that it would not be enforced pending appeal another Employment Judge gave a Judgment striking out not merely the claim relating to the fifth disclosure but (erroneously) the whole claim. Later the Employment Judge erroneously refused to review his Judgment (as he had power to do – see Sodexho Ltd v Gibbons [2005] ICR 1647).
The order striking out the whole of the claim was apparently made on the erroneous basis that the deposit order was the only remaining ‘live’ claim. The Judgment had to be set aside as a consequence of the appeal against the striking out order being allowed. The matter would be remitted with a view to a fresh deposit order being made. This would also give the Claimant to apply afresh for a review.
David Richardson HHJ
[2014] UKEAT 0082 – 14 – 1508
Bailii
England and Wales
Employment
Updated: 21 December 2021; Ref: scu.537100
