Employment Appeal Tribunal Rules in Favour of Employee Over Health and Safety Disclosure Claim
The Employment Appeal Tribunal has ruled that a health and safety disclosure claim was already part of an employee's initial ET1 form.
• public
Employee's Health and Safety Disclosure Claim Upheld by EAT
The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has found that a health and safety disclosure claim made by an employee, Mr Sujith Manuel, against Netduma Limited was "plainly being asserted" in his original Employment Tribunal claim form (ET1). This decision overturns the Employment Judge's earlier ruling that the claim constituted an amendment which was out of time.
Her Honour Judge Russell, delivering the judgment, stated that the claim, particularly referencing Section 44 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, "shouted out" from the particulars of the claim. The EAT highlighted that the employee's ET1, while lengthy and discursive, contained sufficient language to distinguish health and safety disclosures from other protected disclosures. The tribunal also noted that item 23 in the employee's list of claims asserted automatically unfair dismissal for making a health and safety disclosure.
The EAT also considered the alternative argument that if it were deemed an amendment, the Employment Judge had erred in law by placing undue weight on the timing and manner of the application. The tribunal emphasised that delay alone should not be the sole reason for refusing an application to amend and that the balance of injustice needed careful consideration. In this instance, the EAT concluded that the additional factual investigation required would be minimal, with little additional cost to the respondent.
Mr Manuel, who initially represented himself as a litigant in person, has since benefited from legal representation. The EAT expressed sympathy for Employment Judges dealing with complex and unstructured claims but stressed the importance of robust case management tools.
The case has now been remitted for a further Preliminary Hearing to finalise the List of Issues, ensuring the case is ready for a full merits hearing. The employee was cautioned about unreasonable conduct regarding the finalisation of the List of Issues, which could lead to a costs application by the respondent.
Read the entire judgment here: Mr Sujith Manuel v Netduma Ltd EAT 44
