Whistleblowing claim struck out after employee failed to provide details
A former employee's whistleblowing unfair dismissal claim was struck out after he repeatedly failed to give specific details of his alleged protected disclosures, despite multiple tribunal orders.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #public-interest-disclosure
- #unfair-dismissal
- #strike-out
- #failure-to-particularise
- #no-reasonable-prospect
Key facts
- The claimant was employed from 14 April 2020 to 10 January 2022.
- He alleged he made protected disclosures about health and safety, bullying/harassment, and unhealthy gambling.
- He failed to provide further particulars of his claims despite multiple orders from the tribunal.
- The tribunal struck out all claims under Rule 37(1)(a) for having no reasonable prospect of success.
- The claimant's application for reconsideration was refused.
Timeline
-
Employment started
The claimant began working for Kindred (London) Limited.
-
Employment ended
The claimant's employment ended.
-
ACAS notified
The claimant notified ACAS, starting early conciliation.
-
Early conciliation certificate issued
ACAS issued early conciliation certificate R132575/22/13.
-
Claim lodged
The claimant lodged his claim with the Employment Tribunal.
-
Strike out warning
The tribunal issued a strike out warning due to insufficient service and lack of particularisation.
-
Respondent requested particulars
The respondent asked the claimant to provide better and further particulars.
-
Claimant responded to strike out warning
The claimant wrote a lengthy letter but did not provide specific details.
-
Tribunal ordered particulars
Employment Judge Dyal ordered the claimant to answer the respondent's questions within 28 days.
-
Further order and claimant's response
Employment Judge Krepski reiterated the order; the claimant challenged it instead of complying.
-
Open preliminary hearing listed
Employment Judge D. Wright listed an open preliminary hearing to consider strike out.
-
Open preliminary hearing
The hearing took place; the tribunal struck out all claims.
-
Judgment sent to parties
The written judgment was sent to the parties.
-
Reconsideration application
The claimant applied for reconsideration.
-
Reconsideration refused
Employment Judge Aspinall refused the reconsideration application.
The legal issue
Whether the former employee's claims for detriment and dismissal due to whistleblowing had any reasonable prospect of success, given his failure to particularise them despite repeated tribunal orders and a strike-out warning.
The outcome
The tribunal struck out all claims as having no reasonable prospect of success.
The key reason was that the former employee, despite multiple opportunities and orders from the tribunal, never provided clear details of what he said or when, nor explained how his disclosures fell within the legal definition of a protected disclosure under section 43B of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
No compensation was awarded as the claims were struck out before trial.
Lessons & takeaways
- When bringing a whistleblowing claim, you must provide clear and specific details of each disclosure, including what was said, to whom, and when.
- Failing to comply with tribunal orders to provide further particulars can lead to your entire claim being struck out.
- A tribunal can strike out a claim at a preliminary stage if it has no reasonable prospect of success, even without a full hearing.
- If you are representing yourself, seek advice early to understand what information the tribunal will require.
This case shows the importance of providing clear and specific details when bringing a whistleblowing claim. The former employee alleged he made protected disclosures about health and safety, bullying, and unhealthy gambling, but he never explained what he said, when he said it, or how it qualified as a protected disclosure under the law.
Despite multiple opportunities – including tribunal orders and a strike-out warning – the employee failed to provide the necessary particulars. At the preliminary hearing, the judge gave him every chance to explain his case, but the claims remained vague and unclear. The tribunal concluded that the claims had no reasonable prospect of success and struck them out.
What the employer did right
Kindred (London) Limited repeatedly asked for further details and applied to strike out the claim when the employee did not comply. The tribunal supported this approach, noting that the employee had been given ample opportunity to particularise his claims but had not done so.
Why this matters
This case is a reminder that tribunals expect claimants to provide a clear and coherent account of their case from the outset. Vague allegations, especially in whistleblowing claims, are unlikely to survive a strike-out application if the claimant cannot explain how the disclosures meet the legal test. For anyone considering a similar claim, the key lesson is to prepare detailed particulars early and comply with tribunal orders.
Similar cases
Lead Software Consultant's whistleblowing claims dismissed as out of time
An employment tribunal struck out a Lead Software Consultant's whistleblowing detriment and automatically unfair dismissal claims, leaving only an ordinary unfair dismissal claim to proceed. The tribunal also refused the employer's bid to strike out the remaining claim due to the claimant's conduct.
Threatening emails and abuse of witnesses: claim struck out as vexatious
A former employee who sent threatening emails to colleagues and called a witness a liar outside the tribunal room had his unfair dismissal claim struck out. The tribunal said a fair trial was no longer possible.
Strike-out of disability discrimination claim against CEO: no specific allegations
A former employee's disability discrimination claim against the CEO of CSH Surrey was struck out after she failed to particularise any specific allegations against him. The tribunal found the claim had no reasonable prospects of success.
Strike-out for deaf former employee who tried to add new claims late
A tribunal struck out a deaf former employee's disability discrimination claim after she failed to comply with directions and attempted to add new claims that went beyond her original ET1.