HF Trust Ltd

Case Summary

The Claimant's application for Interim Relief was refused as there were no adequate details in the ET1 form that showed a protected disclosure had been made.

The application for interim relief was refused because the ET1 form did not contain adequate details demonstrating that a protected disclosure had been made, which is a necessary prerequisite for interim relief in whistleblowing cases.

• •protected disclosure within the meaning of s.43B of the Employment Rights Act 1996

Case Number:- 6010014/2024. 1 EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS Claimant Respondent Mr F Laing v HF Trust Limited Heard at: Bury St Edmunds On: 10 October 2024 Before: Employment Judge Laidler (sitting alone) Appearances For the Claimant: Did not attend and was not represented For the Respondent: Mr J Raizon, Counsel JUDGMENT 1. The Claimant’s application for Interim Relief is refused. 2. Further Case Management Orders are contained in a separate document. REASONS 1. The Claimant issued proceedings on 30 August 2024 whilst still employed by the Respondent. He commenced employment on 27 May 2024 and it is the Respondent’s case that his employment was terminated on the grounds of conduct with effect from 11 September 2024 and he was paid in lieu of notice. 2. The Claimant in his ET1 ticked the box that he was claiming whistleblowing and the information in the Claim Form at Section 8.2 was that he believed he had been treated unfairly because he had spoken to a manager and nothing happened about staff searching for a patient’s family and girlfriend on Facebook from their mobile. The Respondent who had filed an ET3 and Grounds of Resistance submitted that there were no particulars in the ET1 that could possibly amount to a protected disclosure within the meaning of the Employment Rights Act 1996. 3. On 4 September 2024, the Employment Tribunal acknowledged the Claimant’s application and by a separate email of the same date the Hearing for today was listed. The parties were advised it would be on the Cloud Case Number:- 6010014/2024. 2 Video Platform (CVP) and information was enclosed about hearings by video. 4. As is common practice the day before the Hearing the parties were sent a l…