Cases4105373/2023

Claimant v CHC Scotia Limited

11 November 2025Before Employment Judge J M HendryScotlandremote video

Outcome

Other

Individual claims

Automatic Unfair Dismissalnot determined

This is a reconsideration application concerning an earlier interim relief order granted on 29 September 2023. The respondent's application to reconsider that interim relief judgment was rejected. The tribunal held that the claimant was entitled to regard the demotion from Captain to Co-Pilot as a 'Hogg dismissal', and the interim relief order would stand pending the full merits hearing. The substantive unfair dismissal claim has not yet been determined.

Whistleblowingnot determined

The claimant claimed that disciplinary action (demotion) following his video recording of a helicopter flight was in retaliation for protected disclosures concerning safety issues and vibrations affecting his back. Interim relief was granted, indicating the tribunal found it likely to succeed. The respondent argued the disciplinary action was legitimate response to serious misconduct, not influenced by any protected disclosure. The substantive claim has not yet been determined.

Facts

The claimant, a helicopter Captain, was suspended on 24 August 2023 after using his mobile phone to record video during a flight. He claimed this was to document vibrations causing serious back problems and that he believed filming was tolerated. He was demoted from Captain to Co-Pilot on 1 September 2023. After appeal, his Captain's salary was preserved for one year to allow retraining, but the demotion in rank and status remained. He claimed unfair dismissal and whistleblowing, and was granted interim relief on 29 September 2023. The respondent did not attend that hearing due to mail redirection issues following an office move, and applied for reconsideration.

Decision

The tribunal rejected the respondent's reconsideration application. It held that reconsideration of interim relief orders is competent under Rule 70, but must meet the 'interests of justice' test. The respondent's arguments that there was no dismissal because the appeal partially succeeded were rejected - the claimant was entitled to regard the demotion as a 'Hogg dismissal' even with salary protection. The respondent's failure to receive the original hearing notice was due to inadequate mail arrangements following their office move, and did not justify disturbing the interim relief order.

Practical note

An employer cannot avoid a 'Hogg dismissal' claim by preserving salary on appeal if substantial detriment (such as demotion in rank and status) remains, and interim relief orders are difficult to overturn on reconsideration absent clear error or injustice.

Legal authorities cited

Stevenson v Golden Wonder Ltd [1997] IRLR 474 EATTrimble v Supertravel Ltd [1982] ICR 40Hogg v Dover CollegeMerangakis v Iceland Foods Limited [2022] EAT 16Patel v Folkstone Nursing Home Ltd [2018] EWCA CivJackson v The University Hospitals of North Midlands NHS Trust [2023] EATBuckland v Bournemouth University [2010] EWCA Civ 121Lunn v Ashton Derby Group LimitedOutasight VB Ltd v Brown UKEAT/0253/14

Statutes

Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013 Rules 70-73Employment Rights Act 1996 s.128

Case details

Case number
4105373/2023
Decision date
11 November 2025
Hearing type
reconsideration
Hearing days
1
Classification
procedural

Respondent

Sector
transport
Represented
Yes
Rep type
solicitor

Employment details

Role
Aircraft Commander and Captain

Claimant representation

Represented
Yes
Rep type
solicitor