Mr C Costagliola di Fiore and Ms H S Qadri v Introhive UK Ltd: 2203125/2020 and 2203126/2020
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 02 June 2022 |
| Date | 02 June 2022 |
| Published date | 11 May 2021 |
| Court | Employment Tribunal |
| Citation | 2203125/2020 and 2203126/2020 |
| Subject Matter | Public Interest Disclosure |
Case Number: 2203125/2020 and 2203126/2020 (V)
1 of 16
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
BETWEEN
Claimant AND Respondent
(1) Mr Claudio Costagliola di Fiore Introhive UK Limited
(2) Ms Huma Shams Qadri
Heard at: London Central (by video) On: 20 April 2021
Before: Employment Judge Stout
Representations
For the claimant: Alexandra Sidossis (counsel)
For the respondent: Jen Coyne (counsel)
JUDGMENT
The judgment of the Tribunal is that the claim should not be struck out under Rule
37(1)(a) and/or Rule 37(1)(c).
REASONS
The type of hearing
Case Number: 2203125/2020 and 2203126/2020 (V)
2 of 16
1. This has been a remote electronic hearing under Rule 46 which has been
consented to by the parties. The form of remote hearing was V: fully video. A face
to face hearing was not held because of the pandemic and all issues could be
determined in a remote hearing. The documents that I was referred to are in a
bundle of 747 pages, together with some additional documents that were provided
to me in the course of the hearing by the parties.
2. The public was invited to observe via a notice on Courtserve.net. No members of
the public joined. There were no connectivity issues of any significance.
3. The participants were told that it is an offence to record the proceedings.
The issues
4. The issues to be determined at today’s hearing were as follows:
(1) The Claimant’s application for reconsideration of my Judgment of 4
December 2020;
(2) Whether the evidence concerning the First Claimant’s settlement with his
previous employer and other correspondence with his previous solicitors is
admissible;
(3) The Claimant’s application of 1 April 2021 to amend the ET1 and the
Claimant’s application to amend the ET1 to include reinstatement;
(4) The Respondent’s application to strike out all or parts of the Claimant’s claims
under Rule 37 because:
a. The Claimants are vexatiously abusing the Tribunal’s process; and/or
b. The two claims were incorrectly included on the same form in breach of
Rule 9.
5. Further issues of case management arose which are dealt with in an
accompanying (closed) Case Management Order.
Background
6. The Claimants commenced employment with the Respondent on 8 October 2019.
The Respondent is involved in the business of selling cloud-based software
solutions to business customers. The First Claimant was dismissed on 16 January
2020 for what the Respondent alleges was poor performance. The Second
Claimant was dismissed on 20 January 2020 for what the Respondent alleges was
redundancy. The Claimants commenced these proceedings on 21 May 2020 on
the same claim form. They claim that the real reason they were dismissed was
because they had made protected disclosures concerning what they regarded as
the Respondent's non-compliance with GDPR requirements, in particular that the
Respondent was using and selling to its clients IT solutions which were not GDPR
compliant and not disclosing this non-compliance to customers and those with
To continue reading
Request your trial