Claimant v The National Employment Savings Trust (NEST) Corporation
Outcome
Individual claims
Claim under section 103A Employment Rights Act 1996 alleging dismissal for making protected disclosures. Respondent accepts two qualifying disclosures were made on 24 March and 16 May 2023. Main issue for full hearing is whether disclosures were the reason or principal reason for dismissal. Claimant had less than two years' service so relies on whistleblowing exception.
Claim under section 47B Employment Rights Act 1996 for detriment by acts or deliberate failures to act by Respondent on the ground that Claimant made protected disclosures. Two qualifying disclosures accepted by Respondent. Main issue for full hearing is causation: were alleged detriments done on the ground that Claimant made those disclosures.
Facts
Claimant was dismissed on 16 June 2023 when his fixed term contract was not extended. He alleges he made protected disclosures on 24 March and 16 May 2023, which Respondent accepts as qualifying disclosures. Claimant had less than two years' service. His line manager was Neville Howe (General Counsel) and Richard Lockwood (CFO) was the grievance hearing manager. On 23 December 2024, over a year after filing his claim, Claimant applied to add Howe and Lockwood as individual respondents under sections 47B(1A) and (1B) ERA 1996, seeking to establish personal liability for detriment causing dismissal.
Decision
The tribunal refused the Claimant's late application to add two individual respondents and amend his claim. The judge found this constituted a new cause of action under section 47B(1A) and (1B) ERA 1996, not just a 're-labelling'. The balance of hardship favoured the Respondent given the lateness of the application (made 15 months after the ET1, close to the final hearing), the lack of detailed particulars, the substantial prejudice to all parties including potential delay to the final hearing, and the fact that the Claimant retained viable claims allowing him to ventilate his complaints.
Practical note
Late applications to add individual respondents under section 47B(1A)/(1B) ERA 1996 to circumvent compensation caps will be refused where they constitute new causes of action without adequate particulars and cause substantial prejudice close to a final hearing, even where there is a strategic advantage in pursuing uncapped remedies against individuals.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 3201677/2023
- Decision date
- 9 May 2025
- Hearing type
- preliminary
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- financial services
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Claimant representation
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister