Cases2305977/2021

Claimant v National Opera Studio

19 September 2024Before Employment Judge A FrazerLondon Southremote video

Outcome

Other

Individual claims

Unfair Dismissalnot determined

This preliminary hearing concerned the admissibility of without prejudice discussions held on 31 March 2021. The tribunal ruled that these discussions are protected under s.111A ERA 1996 and inadmissible to the unfair dismissal claim. The merits of the unfair dismissal claim have not yet been determined.

Direct Discrimination(age)not determined

The claimant alleges age discrimination in the decision to investigate his conduct and his dismissal. This preliminary hearing concerned whether without prejudice discussions are admissible. The tribunal ruled they are protected by without prejudice privilege. The merits of the age discrimination claim have not yet been determined.

Facts

The claimant, an internationally recognised conductor aged over 40, was Head of Music at the National Opera Studio from September 2010. In March 2021, following complaints of bullying, intimidation and discrimination, he was suspended and an investigation commenced. On 31 March 2021, the respondent held a 'without prejudice' meeting offering settlement terms including a monetary package or alternative consultancy arrangements. The claimant was dismissed on 3 September 2021 and brought claims for unfair dismissal and age discrimination.

Decision

The tribunal ruled that the discussions on 31 March 2021 are protected by without prejudice privilege for the age discrimination claim and by s.111A ERA 1996 for the unfair dismissal claim. The tribunal found there was an extant dispute or reasonable contemplation of litigation given the seriousness of the allegations and potential for dismissal. The tribunal rejected the claimant's arguments that there was no dispute because he lacked specifics, and found no unambiguous impropriety in the respondent's conduct of the meeting.

Practical note

Without prejudice discussions can be protected even where formal allegations lack specifics, if the nature and seriousness of complaints make litigation reasonably foreseeable and both parties understand the privileged nature of the conversation.

Legal authorities cited

Woodward v Santander UK plc [2010] IRLR 834Faithorn Farrell Timms LLP v Bailey [2016] ICR 1054Independent Research Services v Catterall [1993] ICR 1Unilever v Procter and Gamble [2000] WLR 2436Rush & Tompkins Ltd v Greater London Council [1989] AC 1280Portnykh v Nomura International [2014] IRLR 251BNP Paribas v Mezzotero [2004] IRLR 508Scheldebouw v Evanson [2022] EAT 157Barnetson v Framlington Group [2007] EWCA Civ 502Savings and Investment Bank Ltd v Fincken [2004] 1 WLR 667Garrod v Riverstone Management Ltd [2022] EAT 177

Statutes

ERA 1996 s.111ERA 1996 s.111A

Case details

Case number
2305977/2021
Decision date
19 September 2024
Hearing type
preliminary
Hearing days
1
Classification
procedural

Respondent

Sector
other
Represented
Yes
Rep type
barrister

Employment details

Role
Head of Music
Service
11 years

Claimant representation

Represented
Yes
Rep type
barrister