Petrica v Central London Community NHS Trust (WHISTLEBLOWING AND PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE) [2021] UKEAT 0059_20_1205

Appeal concerning whether the claimant’s whistleblowing claim should have been considered where he had ticked the box on the ET1 but had not provided anything to support that claim.

The Claimant complained that his claim of whistleblowing was not considered. Although the whistleblowing claim was not contained in an agreed list of issues and an earlier application to amend his claim to add a claim of whistleblowing had been refused, the Claimant contended that the Tribunal ought to have been guided by the contents of the Claim Form, particularly as he was a litigant in person. The Claimant also contended that the Tribunal had failed to address two of the allegations of fact relied upon in his claim of constructive dismissal. Those allegations were set out at paragraphs 13(h) and (j) of the List of Issues and had not been considered at all.

Mr Justice Choudhury, President of the EAT, dismissed the appeal. The Tribunal had not erred in treating the claim as if it did not include a whistleblowing complaint. It was not enough that Box 10 of the ET1 form was ticked as the box is on the form for the specific purpose of enabling the Tribunal Service to forward on any such claims to the relevant regulator. It does not give rise to a whistleblowing claim on its own if no relevant particulars are included in the body of the claim and in this case there were no such particulars. Furthermore, the Claimant had had numerous opportunities to include a whistleblowing claim if he had so wished. As for the constructive dismissal allegations, on a fair reading of the judgment, those allegations had been considered.

http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/2021/0059_20_1205.html

Published: 11/08/2021 12:50

message