Claimant v Calor Gas Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal struck out a large number of whistleblowing detriment claims (paragraphs 10.1-4, 10.7, 10.11, 10.15-10.19, 10.23, 10.25, 12.1-12.3, 12.6, 12.12, 13.1-5, 13.7, 13.9, 13.11, 14.1-14.3, 14.5, 14.8, 15.1-15.3, 16.1-16.3) as having no reasonable prospect of success due to lack of specificity and vagueness. However, some whistleblowing detriment claims survived the strike-out application, including a complaint about delay between 5-13 June 2023.
Claim for automatic unfair dismissal for making protected disclosures under s.103A ERA 1996 was not determined at this preliminary hearing. Strike-out application focused on detriments rather than the dismissal itself.
Multiple health and safety detriment claims under s.44(1)(c) ERA 1996 survived strike-out because the tribunal found a core dispute of fact as to whether there were representatives the claimant could contact during his suspension. Taking the claimant's case at its highest, the claims could not be said to have no reasonable prospect of success.
Wrongful dismissal/breach of contract claim was pleaded but not determined at this preliminary hearing which focused on strike-out of specific detriment allegations.
Claims for unlawful deduction of wages (holiday pay and monies related to use of a vehicle) were pleaded but not determined at this preliminary hearing.
Claimant confirmed at the hearing that he no longer sought to pursue any claim of age discrimination. The tribunal noted no such claim was pleaded on the ET1.
Claimant's application to amend to add claims of direct belief discrimination (philosophical/ethical beliefs relating to adherence to professional standards in the gas industry) was refused. The tribunal found the amendment application was made late (17 months after EDT), lacked clarity and particularisation, the belief itself was not adequately defined or shown to meet the Grainger test, and the application would cause significant prejudice to the respondents whilst adding little to existing whistleblowing claims covering the same factual allegations.
Facts
The claimant, a full-time employee of Calor Gas Limited with professional qualifications in welding inspection and non-destructive testing, brought claims of whistleblowing detriment and dismissal, health and safety detriment, wrongful dismissal, and unlawful deduction of wages against his employer and six individual respondents. He relied on 29 alleged protected disclosures and approximately 100-120 alleged detriments. The claimant was suspended and subsequently dismissed following disciplinary proceedings. At a preliminary hearing before EJ Goraj in November 2024, the claimant indicated he wished to add discrimination claims. EJ Goraj made detailed orders requiring the claimant to particularise all his claims and any amendment application by 31 January 2025. The claimant failed to comply adequately with these orders despite being chased by the respondents' solicitors.
Decision
The tribunal refused the claimant's application to amend to add belief discrimination claims, finding it was made late, lacked clarity, the belief was inadequately defined, and would cause disproportionate prejudice to the respondents. The tribunal granted the respondents' strike-out application in part, striking out numerous whistleblowing and health and safety detriment claims as having no reasonable prospect of success due to vagueness and lack of particularisation despite repeated opportunities to clarify. However, the tribunal refused to strike out the entire claim for non-compliance with orders or unreasonable conduct, finding a fair hearing was still possible and strike-out would be disproportionate. The tribunal also refused to make deposit orders.
Practical note
Even for litigants in person, tribunals will strike out claims that remain vague and unparticularised after clear orders and repeated opportunities to clarify, but total strike-out for procedural failures requires the higher threshold that a fair hearing is no longer possible.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 1401143/2024
- Decision date
- 23 July 2025
- Hearing type
- preliminary
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- energy
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- solicitor
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No