Greenly v Future Network Solutions Ltd (Victimisation Discrimination : Protected disclosure) [2013] UKEAT 0359_13_1912 (19 December 2013)

Greenly v Future Network Solutions Ltd (Victimisation Discrimination : Protected disclosure) [2013] UKEAT 0359_13_1912 (19 December 2013)

The Employment Tribunal erred in law by striking out parts of the Claimant’s protected disclosure claim at a preliminary stage without hearing oral evidence, where the distinction between disclosure of information and allegation was fact-sensitive and required full evidential consideration. The high threshold for strike out was not met as there were arguable issues requiring a merits hearing.

Citation
[2013] UKEAT 0359_13_1912
Parties
Appellant: Claimant; Respondent: Respondent
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
19 December 2013
Procedural Posture
Employment Appeal / Appeal From Pre Hearing Review Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Protected Disclosure, Victimisation, Discrimination, Strike Out Applications, TUPE, National Minimum Wage
Employment Law Protected Disclosure Victimisation Discrimination Strike Out Applications TUPE National Minimum Wage

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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Claimant

Appellant

Respondent

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Appeal / Appeal From Pre Hearing Review Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Employment Tribunal erred in law in striking out part of the Claimant’s claim of detriment for making a protected disclosure under s.47B Employment Rights Act 1996
  2. 2 Whether the Tribunal correctly applied the distinction between 'disclosure of information' and 'allegation'
  3. 3 Whether the claim had no reasonable prospects of success justifying strike out

Ratio Decidendi

The Employment Tribunal erred in law by striking out parts of the Claimant’s protected disclosure claim at a preliminary stage without hearing oral evidence, where the distinction between disclosure of information and allegation was fact-sensitive and required full evidential consideration. The high threshold for strike out was not met as there were arguable issues requiring a merits hearing.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Strike out of parts of the protected disclosure claim set aside
  • Matter remitted to Employment Tribunal for full merits hearing on all parts of the protected disclosure claim