Martello Piling Ltd

Case Summary

This is an Employment Appeal Tribunal case concerning the scope of section 111A of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (protected conversations). The claimant appealed a preliminary hearing decision by Employment Judge Wright that excluded evidence of a pre-termination negotiation meeting from all of his claims. The EAT held that section 111A only applies to unfair dismissal claims and the judge had erred in excluding the evidence from the claimant's unlawful deduction from wages and part-time worker less favourable treatment claims. The EAT also held the judge had erred in her consideration of improper conduct by not considering matters in the round, including the claimant's complaints about being ambushed and denied the opportunity to bring a companion.

The judge erred in directing that evidence of a protected conversation be excluded from claims other than unfair dismissal, as section 111A(1) is expressly limited to unfair dismissal claims by section 111A(3) and (5). Additionally, the judge erred in assessing improper conduct under section 111A(4) by considering only what was said at the meeting and how it was said, rather than considering the circumstances in the round, including the claimant's complaints of being ambushed and denied the opportunity to bring a companion.

Use these claim-type pages to compare this decision with other published tribunal cases, outcome patterns, and visible award data.

• •Whether section 111A of the Employment Rights Act 1996 applies globally to all claims or only to unfair dismissal claims
• •Whether protected conversation exclusion applies to unlawful deduction from wages and part-time worker less favourable treatment claims
• •Whether automatic unfair dismissal claims under section 104 are covered by section 111A
• •Whether the respondent's conduct constituted improper behaviour under section 111A(4)
• •Whether the tribunal properly considered the ACAS Code of Practice on Settlement Agreements
• •Whether the claimant was 'ambushed' by the meeting and denied the opportunity to bring a companion

Judgment approved by the Court for handing down L Tarbuc v Martello Piling Ltd © EAT 2026 Page 1 [2026] EAT 58 Neutral Citation Number: [2026] EAT 58 Case No: EA-2025-000625-RS EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL Rolls Building Fetter Lane, London, EC4A 1NL Date: 28 April 2026 Before : JUDGE STOUT - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Between : Mr L Tarbuc Appellant - and - Martello Piling Limited Respondent - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - The Appellant in person Patrick Keith (instructed by George Green LLP) for the Respondent Hearing date: 16 April 2026 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - JUDGMENT Judgment approved by the Court for handing down L Tarbuc v Martello Piling Ltd © EAT 2026 Page 2 [2026] EAT 58 SUMMARY TRIBUNAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – SECTION 111A EMPLOYMENT RIGHTS ACT 1996 Prior to the termination of the claimant’s employment purportedly by reason of redundancy, the respondent employer held a conversation with him that was intended by the respondent to be protected by section 111A of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (ERA 1996) as a pre-termination negotiation. The claimant submitted that section 111A did not apply as the respondent’s conduct had been “improper” under section 111(4). The Employment Tribunal rejected the claimant’s argument and held that section 111A applied. It directed that the fact and content of the protected conversation were therefore not admissible, that documents relevant to it need not be disclosed and all references to it should be redacted from the pleadings and the documents in the bundle for the hearing. Held:- (1) The claimant had brought claims for unlawful deduction from wages and less favourable treatment as a part-time worker as well as unfair dismissal. Section 111A only applies to unfair dismissal and the judge had therefore erred in directi…