Claimant v Enigmatic Smile Ltd
Outcome
Individual claims
Preliminary hearing only addressed respondent's strike-out application. Tribunal refused to strike out claim, finding claimant should be permitted to proceed with his argument that dismissal on 3 February 2025 was motivated by his protected disclosure of 24 January 2025, despite respondent's assertion of gross misconduct as reason. Full merits hearing required to test evidence.
Preliminary hearing only addressed strike-out application. Tribunal refused to strike out claim, finding that claimant's allegation that references to his Irish nationality and remarks about Ireland/Monserrat in dismissal letter connected his race to the dismissal decision requires clarification and evidence testing. Claimant alleges he would not have been treated this way if of different origin.
Preliminary hearing only addressed strike-out application. Tribunal refused to strike out claim, finding that claimant's belief that Palestine should have right to self-determination as a state may constitute philosophical belief, and references to Palestine/Israel conflict in dismissal letter potentially connect this belief to dismissal decision. Requires clarification at case management hearing.
Facts
Claimant with less than 2 years' service dismissed on 3 February 2025 for alleged gross misconduct at a work event in January 2025. On 24 January 2025, after the alleged misconduct but before dismissal, claimant sent email making protected disclosures alleging respondent was operating unlawfully as unregistered financial services provider. Dismissal letter referenced claimant's Irish nationality (comments about Ireland/Monserrat) and his views on Palestine. Respondent obtained witness statements from 9 employees and conducted investigation, maintaining dismissal was purely for gross misconduct unconnected to disclosure.
Decision
Tribunal refused respondent's application to strike out all three claims (automatic unfair dismissal, race discrimination, religion discrimination) and refused alternative application for deposit order. Judge held claims inadequately particularised but not hopeless, finding it premature to strike out at early stage without case management, particularly in whistleblowing/discrimination context where facts heavily disputed. Ordered preliminary hearing for case management to allow claimant to clarify claims.
Practical note
Employment tribunals will be very reluctant to strike out whistleblowing or discrimination claims at an early procedural stage where the central facts are in dispute and the claimant has not yet had opportunity to properly particularise their case, even where the pleadings are weak and the respondent presents apparently strong documentary evidence.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 8000903/2025
- Decision date
- 9 September 2025
- Hearing type
- preliminary
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- financial services
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- solicitor
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No