Claimant v London Borough of Hounslow

The claims of automatically unfair dismissal in Claims 2, 3 and 4 were struck out on the basis of res judicata / cause of action estoppel. Claim 1 had previously been struck out by EJ Fowell for failure to pay a deposit order. The tribunal held that the automatically unfair dismissal complaints in the subsequent claims were covered by the res judicata principle and were therefore an abuse of process.

Allegations c, d and e of protected disclosure detriment were struck out. Allegation c (the decision to dismiss) and d (the dismissal itself pleaded as a detriment) were held to fall within s.47B(2) ERA and/or were subject to cause of action estoppel. Allegation e (manner of dismissal) was held to be in reality a complaint about the dismissal itself and therefore subject to the same estoppel. Allegations a, b and f were not struck out and remain live.

Three of the six alleged detriments (c, d, e) were struck out as either falling foul of s.47B(2) or being subject to res judicata. The remaining detriment allegations (a: dismissive and belittling treatment; b: exclusion from meetings; and f: failure to follow appeal procedure) were not struck out and the respondent's application in respect of those allegations failed.

The respondent's application to strike out the ordinary unfair dismissal claim (Claim 5) failed. The tribunal held there was a significant level of factual dispute, particularly regarding the reliability of the evidence that the claimant had been working from Vietnam, the claimant's technical arguments, and the appeal process. The tribunal concluded the claim had more than a fanciful prospect of success and did not meet the test for strike out or deposit order.