Andruhovics v Sapient Ltd: EAT 18 May 2018

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Amendment
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Case management
UNFAIR DISMISSAL – Automatically unfair reasons
The Claimant, who had less than two years’ service, had sought to pursue claims of unfair dismissal and discrimination before the Employment Tribunal. In resisting an application to strike out his claim of unfair dismissal, the Claimant had asserted that he had been dismissed for an automatically unfair reason under section 104 Employment Rights Act 1996; he also applied to amend his claim to add a complaint of victimisation. The ET concluded that the facts relied on by the Claimant could not support a claim under section 104 (he was relying on allegations of breaches of the Equality Act 2010 which were not included within the provisions covered by section 104 Employment Rights Act 1996); it duly struck out his claim of unfair dismissal. The Claimant appealed against that ruling, contending that it was apparent that the matters he had raised in relation to his claim of victimisation would also have supported a protected disclosure automatic unfair dismissal complaint under section 103A ERA, something the ET should have proactively identified given that the Claimant was acting in person. Separately, the Claimant’s discrimination claims proceeded to a Full Merits Hearing before another ET but were rejected on their merits and the Claimant’s appeal in that regard was dismissed by the EAT.
On the Claimant’s appeal in respect of his unfair dismissal complaint.
Held: dismissing the appeal
The ET had determined the case before it. It had not sought to anticipate any or all other potential causes of action that might have been said to possibly arise from the facts asserted by the Claimant, but that was not its role and it did not err in law in the assisting the Claimant, as a litigant in person, in the limited way that it did. In any event, the Claimant’s case as to the reason for his dismissal was ultimately considered but rejected after a Full Merits Hearing before a different ET. The point taken on appeal had thus been rendered academic.

Citations:

[2018] UKEAT 0031 – 18 – 1805

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment

Updated: 28 May 2022; Ref: scu.625438