Claimant v Whitehead building services
Outcome
Individual claims
Struck out for having no reasonable prospect of success. On the claimant's own case, he did not make a qualifying disclosure, which is a necessary element of a protected disclosure claim under the Employment Rights Act 1996.
Struck out for having no reasonable prospect of success. On the claimant's own case, he was paid for his notice period, meaning there was no breach of contract and no basis for a wrongful dismissal claim.
Struck out for having no reasonable prospect of success. On the claimant's own case, he lacked the necessary qualifying service (two years continuous employment) required under section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 to bring an ordinary unfair dismissal claim.
Facts
Mr Mcfadden brought claims against Whitehead building services for whistleblowing, wrongful dismissal, and unfair dismissal. The tribunal issued a strike-out notice on 21 March 2025 identifying fundamental defects in all three claims based on the claimant's own pleaded case. The claimant failed to respond to the notice or request a hearing.
Decision
The tribunal struck out all claims for having no reasonable prospect of success. The whistleblowing claim failed because no qualifying disclosure was made, the wrongful dismissal claim failed because notice pay had been provided, and the unfair dismissal claim failed due to insufficient qualifying service under section 108 ERA 1996.
Practical note
Claimants must ensure claims meet basic statutory prerequisites before filing, and must respond to strike-out warnings to avoid automatic dismissal of their case.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 6019886/2024
- Decision date
- 3 June 2025
- Hearing type
- strike out
- Hearing days
- —
- Classification
- procedural
Respondent
- Sector
- construction
- Represented
- No
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No