Garcia v Market Probe Europe Ltd (Practice and Procedure : Preliminary issues)

An unprofessionally drafted ET1 should be read generously. Where its factual allegations are capable of disclosing that the claimant supplied information tending to show a breach of a legal obligation, and suffered detriment because of that disclosure and associated complaint, it is wrong at a preliminary stage to hold that no protected-disclosure detriment claim has been pleaded.

The claim need only contain sufficient information to identify the issue. Its merits should then be determined at trial.

The claimant presented an ET1 alleging unfair dismissal, detrimental treatment and unlawful deductions. After setting aside a default judgment, the Employment Tribunal ruled that the ET1 did not raise a complaint concerning a protected disclosure, despite the claimant’s contention that his complaint about missing recorded hours and cancelled shifts had led to detrimental treatment and dismissal.

The claimant appealed that preliminary ruling. The central issue was whether the wording of the ET1 was capable of pleading a justiciable claim for detriment because of a protected disclosure.

1. Appeal allowed. The Employment Judge’s conclusion was understandable, but could not survive close analysis of the ET1.

2. The pleaded facts were capable of meaning that the claimant provided the respondent with information that its supervisor had failed to record hours worked and had cancelled shifts without notice. Those matters were capable of alleging breaches of legal obligations by the respondent.

3. Applying Parkins v Sedexho Limited [2002] IRLR 109, that analysis was sufficient to disclose a justiciable protected-disclosure claim. The pleading also alleged that the combination of supplying that information and making a complaint caused the asserted detriments.

4. The ET1 was not professionally drafted and had to be read generously. It contained enough information to indicate a claim for detriment for making a protected disclosure. The claim should proceed to trial, rather than be excluded at the preliminary stage.

5. The Employment Appeal Tribunal expressed no view on the merits.

• Employment Appeal Tribunal: Allowed the claimant’s appeal against the preliminary ruling that the ET1 did not raise a protected-disclosure detriment claim.
• Employment Tribunal: In reasons sent on 28 September 2012, set aside a default judgment and ruled that the ET1 did not plead a public-interest-disclosure complaint.