S Coleman v Sytner Group Ltd: 2601262/2020
| Judgment Date | 20 February 2021 |
| Citation | 2601262/2020 |
| Published date | 24 March 2021 |
| Court | Employment Tribunal |
| Subject Matter | Public Interest Disclosure |
Case No: 2601262/2020
1
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
JUDGMENT FOLLOWING
PRELIMINARY HEARING
Claimant: Sean Coleman
Respondent: Sytner Group Limited
Heard at: Nottingham (in private) On: 28 January 2021
Before: Employment Judge Rachel Broughton (sitting alone)
Appearances
For the claimant: Mr Bidnell- Edwards - counsel
For the respondent: Mr Brown - counsel
JUDGMENT
The application to amend the claim is successful
REASONS
The claim and background
(1) The claimant was employed by the respondent in the role of Business
Manager from 20 June 2016 up to 14 January 2020. He presented a
claim before the Employment Tribunal on 21 April 2020 following a
period of Acas early conciliation from 20th of February to 20 March 2020.
(2) The claimant is legally represented and has been throughout the
proceedings so far. His solicitors submitted a very full claim form on his
behalf, with a narrative style of drafting extending to approximately 17 ½
Case No: 2601262/2020
2
pages. The respondent is reminded of the EAT guidance in C v D
UKEAT/0132/19/RN.
(3) The complaints are essentially that the claimant made protected
disclosures pursuant to section 43A Employment Rights Act 1996 (ERA)
and that he was subject to detriments by the respondent done on the
ground that that he had made protected disclosures pursuant to section
47B ERA and further that his dismissal was both unfair under section 94
and 98 of the ERA and automatically unfair under section 103A ERA.
(4) The case has been listed for a final hearing; 5 days from the 4th to 8
October 2021. Case management orders for the preparation of the case
for the final hearing were set out in the Notice of Claim dated 27th of April
2020 and those remain in place. Neither counsel were aware today of
what progress has been made by the parties in respect of those case
management orders and preparation for the final hearing, however both
were content that no further orders were required at this stage and the
parties are cooperating to prepare the case for the final hearing.
Case management hearing 22nd of July 2020
(5) The case became before Employment Judge Dyal at a preliminary
hearing on 22 July 2020. Neither of the counsel present at today’s
hearing were in attendance at that hearing. Employment Judge Dyal set
out within his case management summary following the hearing, the
legal issues in the case.
(6) The particulars of claim had summarised the claims from paragraph 41
onwards and in respect of the alleged detriments pursuant to section
47B, paragraph 41 a – d of the claim form set them out as follows;
a. subjected to performance improvement meetings
b. setting unrealistic targets following performance improvement
meetings.
c. being pressured to increase GAP sales by being set unrealistic
targets despite Chris Moorhouse being aware of the Claimant’s
concerns regarding the Respondents practice’s concerning
GAP sales.
d. dismissal. [my stress]
(7) Employment Judge Dyal’s case management summary following the
preliminary hearing set out the detriments as follows;
To continue reading
Request your trial