Mr D Hoppe v HM Revenue and Customs and Others
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judge | Judge Auerbach |
| Subject Matter | Not landmark |
| Court | Employment Appeal Tribunal |
| Published date | 11 October 2021 |
Judgment approved by the court for handing down Mr David Hoppe v HMRC
Page 1
EA-2020-000093-RN, EA-2021-000354-RN, EA-2021-000684-RN, EA-2021-000685-RN, EA-2021-000692-RN, EA-2021-000693-RN, EA-2021-
000694-RN
© EAT 2021
Case Nos: EA-2020-000093-RN, EA-2021-000354-RN
EA-2021-000684-RN, EA-2021-000685-RN
EA-2021-000692-RN, EA-2021-000693-RN, EA-2021-000694-RN
EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
Rolls Building
Fetter Lane, London, EC4A 1NL
Date: 11 October 2021
Before :
HIS HONOUR JUDGE AUERBACH
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Between :
MR D HOPPE Appellant
- and -
HM REVENUE AND CUSTOMS Respondents
MyCSP
HEALTH MANAGEMENT LIMITED
CABINET OFFICE
MINISTER FOR CIVIL SERVICE
HEALTH ASSURED LIMITED
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The Appellant in person (by telephone link)
Mr J Hurd (instructed by Government Legal Department) for HMRC
Mr E Morgan QC (instructed by Equiniti Group Legal Department) for MyCSP
Mr B Mold (instructed by BDB Pitmans LLP) for Health Management Limited
Mr S Redpath (instructed by Government Legal Department) for Cabinet Office
Mr S Redpath (instructed by Government Legal Department) for Minister for Civil Service
Mr Z Mati (Peninsula Business Services) written submission for Health Assured Limited
Hearing dates: 23 and 24 September 2021
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
JUDGMENT
Judgment approved by the court for handing down Mr David Hoppe v HMRC
Page 2
EA-2020-000093-RN, EA-2021-000354-RN, EA-2021-000684-RN, EA-2021-000685-RN, EA-2021-000692-RN, EA-2021-000693-RN, EA-2021-
000694-RN
© EAT 2021
WHISTLEBLOWING, PROTECTED DISCLOSURES
The proceedings in the employment tribunal are ongoing. The claimant is a former civil servant and
employee of HMRC who was dismissed on the given ground of conduct. Over a period of years,
before and after the dismissal, he presented a number of claims to the employment tribunal. His
complaints included that he was subjected to detrimental treatment, and unfairly dismissed, for having
made protected disclosures. He also alleged various wrongdoing in relation to an application made
by him following dismissal for civil service injury benefit in relation to ill health. His case is that his
ill health has been caused by his wrongful treatment by HMRC. The claims were and are disputed
and defended. A number of decisions of the tribu nal were the subject of appeals to the EAT. Th e
following matters were considered at the hearing in the EAT giving rise to the present decision.
(1) The tribunal struck out 18 complaints of detrimental treatment on grounds of protected
disclosures. This was the full hearing of the appeal against that decisi on. The tribunal was
entitled to strike out 15 of the detriments. But it erred in relation to three of them, which
should be considered at the full merits hearing alongside the complaints of unfair dismissal
for having made protected disclosures and ordinary unfair dismissal.
(2) The tribunal struck out complaints against MyCSP, Health Management Limited and the
Minister for the Civil Service. This was the full appeal hearing in respect of that decision.
The complaints against each of those respondents were sustainable only on the basis that they
acted as agents of HMRC in respect of the matters alleged against them. The tribunal was not
wrong to conclude that there was no reasonable prospect of that being shown.
(3) There was a challenge to the partial refusal of a disclosure application. That was not
reasonably arguable, and was not permitted to proceed to a full appeal hearing.
(4) In another decision the tribunal had determined that the Cabinet Office and Health Assured
Limited were not agents of HMRC in respect of the matters alleged against them. The EAT
Judgment approved by the court for handing down Mr David Hoppe v HMRC
Page 3
EA-2020-000093-RN, EA-2021-000354-RN, EA-2021-000684-RN, EA-2021-000685-RN, EA-2021-000692-RN, EA-2021-000693-RN, EA-2021-
000694-RN
© EAT 2021
refused to extend time in respect of an out-of-time appeal against that decision.
(5) An appeal against a refusal by the tribunal to reconsider that same decision of the tribunal had
no reasonable prospect of success and was not permitted to proceed to a full hearing.
(6) Appeals against case management decisions taken in respect of the remaining live complaints
against HMRC were not arguable and were not permitted to proceed to a full hearing.
To continue reading
Request your trial