EAT PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Disclosure
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Review
The Claimant claims he was subjected to a detriment by PricewaterhouseCoopers for making protected disclosures regarding tax-based leasing schemes. An Employment Judge made an Order on 1 August 2016 requiring HMRC (not a party to the proceedings and not notified of the application for disclosure) to provide documents and information requested by the Claimant in two appendices. HMRC gave information in response to the Order and by application sought an Order permitting them to redact documents. This was granted by Order of 24 October 2016, and the Employment Judge held that HMRC had complied with the Order of 1 August. On 13 December 2016 the Employment Judge refused an application by the Claimant to reconsider her Decision of 24 October 2016.
Although the decision that the Order of 1 August 2016 had been complied with was essentially one of case management, the conclusion reached by the Employment Judge was outside the wide margin of discretion. It could not be concluded that the answers given by HMRC on 14 September 2016 complied in all respects with the Order. In exercise of its powers on appeal the Employment Appeal Tribunal allowed the appeal and substituted an Order in agreed terms. The ground of appeal challenging the Order enabling redaction was not pursued on further information being given to the Claimant by HMRC.
Judges:
Slade DBE J
Citations:
[2017] UKEAT 0012 – 17 – 2006
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Employment
Updated: 30 January 2022; Ref: scu.592673