Mackenzie & Co Solicitors

Case Summary

The claimant's whistleblowing complaints were struck out under Rule 38 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 due to his failure to comply with two separate tribunal directions requiring identification of protected disclosures, despite being given 21-day periods to respond on two occasions. His redundancy payment claim was also struck out because he had not been employed for the two-year minimum period required by section 155 of the Employment Rights Act 1996.

The whistleblowing complaints were struck out because the claimant failed to comply with tribunal directions despite being offered two separate opportunities to provide identification of the protected disclosures relied upon, and 14 months into proceedings the necessary particulars had not been provided, making a fair hearing impossible. The redundancy payment claim was struck out because the claimant had not been employed for the statutory minimum two-year period required by section 155 of the Employment Rights Act 1996.

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

• •Protected disclosures under Public Interest Disclosure Act
• •Failure to provide particulars of whistleblowing complaints
• •Non-compliance with tribunal directions
• •Right to redundancy payment under Employment Rights Act 1996
• •Two-year employment qualifying period for redundancy

EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS Claimant: Mr Arsalan Ahmad Respondent: Mackenzie & Co Solicitors JUDGMENT The complaints of (1) detriment and/or dismissal due to exercising rights under the Public Interest Disclosure Act and (2) failure to make a redundancy payment are struck out. REASONS (1) Whistleblowing complaints 1. The Tribunal wrote to the claimant on 31 July 2025 seeking further information as to the basis for the claimant’s whistleblowing complaints – specifically, identification of the protected disclosures relied upon. A 21- day period for responding was given. No response was received from the claimant. 2. The Tribunal wrote again to the claimant on 21 November 2025 warning him that the Tribunal was considering striking out the whistleblowing complaints. This was because it appeared to the Tribunal, applying Rule 38 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024, that an order of the Tribunal had not been complied with and the complaints were not being actively pursued. 3. The letter gave the claimant an opportunity to explain why the complaints should not be struck out. A 21-day period for responding was given. No response was received from the claimant. 4. I am satisfied that the grounds for striking out the claim under Rule 38 apply and that it would be in accordance with the overriding objective in Rule 3 to strike out the claim. This is because despite being offered two separate opportunities to comply with the Tribunal’s directions of 31 July 2025, the claimant has failed to do so. The claim has now been proceeding for 14 months since it was presented, yet the necessary particulars have not been provided. It is more likely that not that this lack of engagement will continue, which would render a fair hearing of the complaints in December 2026 impossible. 5. The whistleblowing complaints are therefore struck out. (2) Redundancy payment 6. In his ET1 claim form the claimant tick…