Appeal against refusal by the Employment Judge to strike out Dr Armes’ claims under sections 47B, 103A and 100(1)(c) Employment Rights Act 1996. The application to strike out was made on the basis that Dr Armes had no reasonable prospect of establishing that his pleaded disclosures were ‘qualifying disclosures’ within the meaning of section 43B(1), or health and safety disclosures within the meaning of section 100(1)(c) of the 1996 Act.
Held: the Employment Judge had erred in law in failing to identify the information which was said to have been disclosed in each of Dr Armes’ pleaded disclosures and to consider whether that information was capable of satisfying the relevant statutory definitions. Six of the seven disclosures had no reasonable prospect of satisfying those definitions and would therefore be struck out subject to Dr Armes having the opportunity to apply to amend his pleaded case within 28 days.
Consideration of the interpretation and application of section 43B(1) of the 1996 Act in the light of Kilraine v London Borough of Wandsworth [2018] ICR 1850 CA and Fincham v HM Prison Service UKEAT/0925/01.
Citations:
[2020] UKEAT 0030 – 20 – 2310
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Employment
Updated: 26 November 2022; Ref: scu.661656
