L Tarbuc v Martello Piling Limited

L Tarbuc v Martello Piling Limited

Section 111A ERA 1996 does not exclude evidence of pre-termination negotiations from claims for unlawful deduction from wages or part-time worker discrimination; the Tribunal erred in applying the exclusion globally. The Tribunal also erred by failing to consider the cumulative effect of the respondent’s conduct as potentially improper under s.111A(4) and by not giving adequate reasons. There was no pleaded automatic unfair dismissal claim under section 104 ERA 1996, so the Tribunal was not required to raise it of its own motion.

Parties
Appellant: Mr L Tarbuc; Respondent: Martello Piling Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
28 April 2026
Procedural Posture
Employment Appeal / Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part, dismissed in part, remitted for rehearing before a different judge.
Legal Topics
Protected Conversations, Section 111 a Employment Rights Act 1996, Unfair Dismissal, Unlawful Deduction From Wages, Part Time Worker Discrimination, Improper Conduct, ACAS Code of Practice
Employment Law Protected Conversations Section 111 a Employment Rights Act 1996 Unfair Dismissal Unlawful Deduction From Wages Part Time Worker Discrimination Improper Conduct ACAS Code of Practice

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr L Tarbuc

Appellant

Martello Piling Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Appeal / Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Does section 111A ERA 1996 protection apply to claims other than ordinary unfair dismissal?
  2. 2 Did the Employment Tribunal err in excluding evidence of the protected conversation from all claims?
  3. 3 Did the Tribunal fail to consider the cumulative effect of the respondent’s conduct as improper under s.111A(4)?

Ratio Decidendi

Section 111A ERA 1996 does not exclude evidence of pre-termination negotiations from claims for unlawful deduction from wages or part-time worker discrimination; the Tribunal erred in applying the exclusion globally. The Tribunal also erred by failing to consider the cumulative effect of the respondent’s conduct as potentially improper under s.111A(4) and by not giving adequate reasons. There was no pleaded automatic unfair dismissal claim under section 104 ERA 1996, so the Tribunal was not required to raise it of its own motion.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part, dismissed in part, remitted for rehearing before a different judge.

Orders

  • Documents relating to the protected conversation to be disclosed and considered for unlawful deduction from wages and part-time worker claims.
  • Employment Tribunal to reconsider the issue of improper conduct under s.111A(4) with full consideration of the cumulative circumstances.