Kraus v. Penna Plc & Anor [2003] UKEAT 0360_03_2011 (20 November 2003)

Kraus v. Penna Plc & Anor [2003] UKEAT 0360_03_2011 (20 November 2003)

The appeal was dismissed because, even assuming the appellant's factual allegations were true, the information disclosed did not meet the statutory test of 'likely to fail to comply' with a legal obligation, no specific legal obligation was identified, and causation between the alleged protected disclosure and the detriment was not established. The Tribunal was entitled to strike out the claim as misconceived for having no reasonable prospect of success.

Citation
[2003] UKEAT 0360_03_2011
Parties
Appellant: Mr. Kraus; 1st Respondent: Penna; 2nd Respondent: Syltone
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
20 November 2003
Procedural Posture
Employment Appeal / Appeal From Employment Tribunal Decision Striking Out Claim at Pre Hearing Review
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Protected Disclosure, Whistleblowing, Detriment, Strike Out Applications, Reasonable Prospect of Success
Employment Law Protected Disclosure Whistleblowing Detriment Strike Out Applications Reasonable Prospect of Success

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

Parties

Mr. Kraus

Appellant

Penna

1st Respondent

Syltone

2nd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Appeal / Appeal From Employment Tribunal Decision Striking Out Claim at Pre Hearing Review

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Employment Tribunal erred in law in striking out the appellant's claim as misconceived for having no reasonable prospect of success under section 48 Employment Rights Act 1996
  2. 2 Whether the appellant made a qualifying protected disclosure within the meaning of sections 43A to 43C Employment Rights Act 1996
  3. 3 Whether there was a legal obligation likely to be breached by the employer

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed because, even assuming the appellant's factual allegations were true, the information disclosed did not meet the statutory test of 'likely to fail to comply' with a legal obligation, no specific legal obligation was identified, and causation between the alleged protected disclosure and the detriment was not established. The Tribunal was entitled to strike out the claim as misconceived for having no reasonable prospect of success.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The claim remains struck out as misconceived.