Claimant v Costa Ltd
Outcome
Individual claims
Claim concerns being deliberately called 'Francesco' by colleague Diya and 'Pablo' by colleague Julia. Tribunal ruled no amendment was required as the ET1 referred to 'bullying and harassment including racial slurs' and the claimant was merely providing factual details. Respondent withdrew strike-out application; deposit order application adjourned for procedural reasons.
Claimant made disclosures on 9 September 2023 (by text and verbally) about store hygiene, safety, and rats, believing these showed breach of legal obligations and health and safety endangerment. Claimed detriments included the same racial harassment, threatening messages, and shaming by distribution of messages to managers. Tribunal found the ET1 referred broadly to the disclosure and no amendment was required, merely re-labelling and further particulars. Time limit issues may arise at final hearing.
Facts
The claimant, a Portuguese employee who started in September 2015, made protected disclosures in September and October 2023 about health and safety issues including hygiene, lack of risk assessments, and rat infestation at the Costa store in Leamington Spa. He alleged subsequent detriments including racial harassment (being called 'Francesco' and 'Pablo' by colleagues), threatening messages, and his complaint being shared to shame him. He resigned in December 2024. The respondent applied to strike out claims and/or order deposits, arguing the claims were out of time and not properly pleaded.
Decision
The tribunal ruled that no amendment was required. The claimant's poorly drafted ET1 had referred to 'bullying and harassment including racial slurs' and to raising health and safety concerns, and he was merely providing factual details and applying correct legal labels. The respondent withdrew the strike-out application. The tribunal adjourned the deposit order application because the respondent had not given proper notice under Rule 53 for deposit orders relating to whistleblowing claims. Time limit issues may be addressed at final hearing.
Practical note
A poorly drafted claim form by an unrepresented claimant will not necessarily require formal amendment if the essential factual basis is present and the claimant is merely providing further particulars and applying correct legal labels.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 1306014/2024
- Decision date
- 26 March 2025
- Hearing type
- preliminary
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Name
- Costa Ltd
- Sector
- hospitality
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- solicitor
Employment details
- Service
- 9 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No