The claimant in the ET was a litigant in person. Upon consideration of her claim form under rule 12 Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013, a judge determined that there were two complaints, being of (a) ordinary unfair dismissal, in respect of which the claimant lacked qualifying service, and which was dismissed; and (b) breach of contract, which was permitted to proceed. On appeal the Claimant contended that her claim form indicated that she was seeking to bring a complaint that she was unfairly dismissed for making a protected disclosure, and that the judge had erred by precluding such a claim under rule 12. The Claimant had subsequently written a letter, which the ET had treated as an application for reconsideration of the rule 12 decision under rule 13. However, it appeared that that application had not been determined.

The EAT allowed the appeal. The judge had erred by precluding a possible protected disclosure complaint at the rule 12 stage. A proposed complaint should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction under rule 12 only in the clearest of cases. The Claimant had done enough in the claim form to indicate that she was seeking to pursue a protected disclosure complaint. The particulars in the claim form did not properly explain what she contended she had done that amounted to the making of a protected disclosure, nor why she considered that the relationship had been terminated because of any such disclosure by her; but she was a litigant in person and these were matters that could properly be explored at the initial consideration stage under rules 26 - 28.