Tribunal refuses disclosure request as a fishing expedition in unfair dismissal claim
A former employee and shareholder sought extensive disclosure of communications between his employer and an external investigator. The tribunal refused, finding the request was not necessary for fair disposal.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #disclosure-application
- #fishing-expedition
- #hive-investigation
- #director-dispute
- #shareholder-issues
Key facts
- The claimant was suspended on 30 March 2021 on grounds of misconduct.
- HIVE investigated the allegations and found insufficient evidence to support them.
- HIVE dismissed the claimant on 17 August 2021 for some other substantial reason (breakdown in trust and confidence).
- The claimant made a specific disclosure application for communications between the respondent and HIVE, and documents about dividends and a project called GIBIDI.
- The tribunal refused the application except for ordering disclosure of the terms of engagement between the respondent and HIVE.
- The application was refused because it was a fishing expedition and the documents were not necessary for fair disposal.
Timeline
-
Suspension
The claimant was suspended from work on grounds of misconduct.
-
HIVE letter
HIVE wrote to the claimant stating insufficient evidence to support allegations but raised concerns about return to work.
-
Dismissal
HIVE dismissed the claimant for some other substantial reason, specifically breakdown in trust and confidence.
-
Disclosure request
The claimant made a written request for specific disclosure from the respondent.
-
Respondent's refusal
The respondent's solicitors refused the disclosure requests.
-
Application filed
The claimant filed an application for specific disclosure.
-
Preliminary hearing
The matter was listed for a preliminary hearing to consider the disclosure application.
-
Judgment
Employment Judge Rice-Birchall issued the judgment refusing the disclosure application except for the terms of engagement with HIVE.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant's application for specific disclosure of documents from the respondent should be granted, applying the test of whether the documents were necessary for fair disposal of the proceedings.
The outcome
The tribunal refused the claimant's application for specific disclosure, except for ordering disclosure of the terms of engagement between the respondent and the external investigator, HIVE.
The key reasons were:
- The request for all communications between the respondent and HIVE, and between directors, was a fishing expedition.
- The documents were not necessary for fair disposal of the proceedings.
- The claimant already had sufficient information to understand the basis of his dismissal.
No compensation was awarded as this was a preliminary decision on disclosure, not the final outcome of the claim.
Lessons & takeaways
- Disclosure requests in tribunal proceedings must be focused on documents that are necessary for fair disposal, not speculative fishing expeditions.
- If you already have key documents explaining the reasons for your dismissal, a broad request for all internal communications is unlikely to succeed.
- A tribunal will consider proportionality: asking for years of messages and financial records may be seen as excessive.
- Seeking disclosure of documents that are not directly relevant to the legal issues can delay proceedings and risk costs.
What this case shows in practice
This case illustrates the limits of disclosure in employment tribunal claims. The claimant, a former employee and one-third shareholder, was suspended and later dismissed by an external investigator, HIVE, for a breakdown in trust and confidence. He sought extensive disclosure of communications between the company and HIVE, as well as documents about a project called GIBIDI, arguing these were relevant to show the directors' intentions.
The tribunal disagreed. It found the request was a classic fishing expedition — the claimant was hoping to find something useful rather than seeking documents clearly needed for the case. The tribunal noted that the claimant already had the key letters from HIVE explaining the reasons for dismissal. Without a specific basis to believe further documents were necessary, the application failed.
What the losing side could have done differently
The claimant's application was too broad. Instead of asking for all communications over a 12-month period, a more targeted request — for example, specific emails or minutes of meetings where the decision to dismiss was discussed — might have succeeded. The tribunal did order disclosure of the terms of engagement with HIVE, showing that narrow, focused requests can work.
Why the result matters for similar claims
This decision reinforces that disclosure is not a tool for general discovery. Claimants must show that the documents sought are likely to be relevant and necessary, not just desirable. For anyone bringing an unfair dismissal claim, it's a reminder to think carefully about what documents you actually need to prove your case, and to avoid requests that look like a search for a smoking gun.