Stefan Liberadzki acts for successful appellant in Edinboro v Jamma Umoja (Residential Services) Ltd [2024] EAT 61

The Claimant, acting as a litigant in person, had brought claims of unfair dismissal, detriment for whistleblowing and breach of contract. The Tribunal listed an open preliminary hearing to decide “whether the Claimant’s claim of unfair dismissal should be struck out, whether the Claimant has brought any other claims and the name of the Respondent”. However, at the preliminary hearing an Employment Judge proceeded to dismiss all of her claims.

The Claimant appealed and Stefan Liberadzki, instructed pro bono through Advocate, represented her at the full hearing in the EAT. The appeal was upheld and the strike-out application was remitted for fresh consideration by a different Employment Judge. In summary:

• The EJ should not have struck out the breach of contract claims in the absence of notice to the Claimant that they might be struck out, as required by rule 37(2).
• On the whistleblowing claims (for detriment and automatically unfair dismissal), the EJ went beyond considering whether the Claimant had reasonable prospects of success at trial and impermissibly made findings on the substance of the claims.
• The EJ also applied the wrong test for whether the Claimant had made a protected disclosure. The question was not whether the Claimant’s disclosure of information actually tended to show a relevant failure, but whether the Claimant reasonably believed that it tended to show a relevant failure.

Edinboro v Jamma Umoja (Residential Services) Ltd [2024] EAT 61 judgment.

Comment

The EAT’s decision is a reminder to pracitioners and Tribunals that parties – particularly unrepresented claimants – are entitled to know, with certainty and in good time ahead of a preliminary hearing, which claims will be considered for striking out.

Submissions on strike-out should focus carefully on the legal test(s) that the claimant will have to meet at trial, and whether the pleaded claim (taken at its highest) has some reasonable prospect of success. It will rarely be appropriate for the Tribunal to consider disputed points of fact. In a whistleblowing claim, those factual issues may include: what information the claimant disclosed; what relevant failure they believed it tended to show; whether their belief was reasonable; and whether they reasonably believed the disclosure was in the public interest.

11th Jun 2024

Stefan Liberadzki

Call 2013