Twist DX Ltd & Ors v Armes & Ors (WHISLEBLOWING, PROTECTED DISCLOSURES) [2020] UKEAT 0030_20_2310 (23 October 2020)

Twist DX Ltd & Ors v Armes & Ors (WHISLEBLOWING, PROTECTED DISCLOSURES) [2020] UKEAT 0030_20_2310 (23 October 2020)

The Employment Judge erred in law by failing to identify the information disclosed in each of Dr Armes' pleaded disclosures and to consider whether that information was capable of satisfying the statutory definitions under sections 43B(1) and 100(1)(c) of the Employment Rights Act 1996. Six of the seven disclosures had no reasonable prospect of satisfying those definitions and should be struck out, subject to Dr Armes having the opportunity to apply to amend his pleaded case within 28 days.

Citation
[2020] UKEAT 0030_20_2310
Parties
Claimant/appellant: Dr Armes; Respondents: Abbott Laboratories and others
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
23 October 2020
Procedural Posture
Employment Appeal / Appeal Against Refusal to Strike Out Whistleblowing and Health and Safety Claims at Preliminary Hearing
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part
Legal Topics
Whistleblowing, Protected Disclosures, Automatic Unfair Dismissal, Health and Safety Disclosures, Strike Out Applications, Employment Rights Act 1996
Employment Law Whistleblowing Protected Disclosures Automatic Unfair Dismissal Health and Safety Disclosures Strike Out Applications Employment Rights Act 1996

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 4 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dr Armes

Claimant/appellant

Abbott Laboratories and others

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Employment Appeal / Appeal Against Refusal to Strike Out Whistleblowing and Health and Safety Claims at Preliminary Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Employment Judge erred in law by failing to identify the information disclosed in each alleged protected disclosure and to consider whether it was capable of satisfying statutory definitions under sections 43B(1) and 100(1)(c) of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
  2. 2 Whether six of the seven pleaded disclosures had no reasonable prospect of satisfying the statutory definitions and should be struck out.

Ratio Decidendi

The Employment Judge erred in law by failing to identify the information disclosed in each of Dr Armes' pleaded disclosures and to consider whether that information was capable of satisfying the statutory definitions under sections 43B(1) and 100(1)(c) of the Employment Rights Act 1996. Six of the seven disclosures had no reasonable prospect of satisfying those definitions and should be struck out, subject to Dr Armes having the opportunity to apply to amend his pleaded case within 28 days.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part

Orders

  • Six of the seven pleaded disclosures are struck out, subject to Dr Armes having 28 days to apply to amend his pleaded case.
  • The remaining claims may proceed as amended, if so applied.