Twist DX Ltd and others v Armes and another UKEAT/0030/20/JOJ

Appeal against the ET’s refusal of an application by the Respondents to strike out the Claimant’s claims of victimisation and automatically unfair dismissal. Appeal allowed.

The Claimant, a research scientist and managing director of the First Respondent, was dismissed. He brought claims in the ET against ten named Respondents, alleging victimisation, unfair and automatically unfair dismissal, and that he was subjected to a number of detriments for having made protected disclosures and/or raised health and safety issues. The Respondents applied to strike out the Claimant's claims, but the ET refused the application on the basis that it could not say that the alleged protected disclosures that he relied on had no reasonable prospect of success. The Respondents appealed, arguing that the ET had not sufficiently considered what information, if any, was disclosed in the communications relied on by the Claimant, and whether that information was capable of being reasonably believed to show any of the matters specified in section 43B(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996.

The EAT held that the ET had not adequately applied the terms of section 43B(1) and the guidance in Kilraine v London Borough of Wandsworth [2018] ICR 1850. The EAT was not prepared to set aside the ET's judgment and substitute a decision that the Claimant's claims should be struck out; however, instead of remitting issues to the ET, it ruled on the prospects of success of the seven alleged protected disclosures and found that it was reasonably arguable that one of the disclosures was a qualifying disclosure, and that the ET would need to hear evidence in order to decide that part of the Claimant's case.

Published: 09/03/2021 19:14