Twist DX Ltd and Others v 1) Dr Niall Armes 2) Mrs Helen Kent-Armes
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judge | Mr Justice Linden |
| Subject Matter | Not landmark |
| Court | Employment Appeal Tribunal |
| Published date | 23 February 2021 |
Appeal No. UKEAT/0030/20/JOJ (V)
EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
ROLLS BUILDING, 7 ROLLS BUILDINGS, FETTER LANE, LONDON EC4A 1NL
At the Tribunal
On 21 & 23 October 2020
Before
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE LINDEN
(SITTING ALONE)
(1) TWIST DX LIMITED
(2) ABBOTT (UK) HOLDINGS LIMITED
(3) ABBOTT LABORATORIES LIMITED
(4) KEVAN GOGAY
(5) ROSS MACKEN
(6) LES MUGGERIDGE Appellants/Respondents
(1) DR NIALL ARMES
(2) MRS HELEN KENT-ARMES
Respondents/Claimants
Transcript of Proceedings
JUDGMENT
UKEAT/0030/20/JOJ
APPEARANCES
The Appellants
MR PAUL NICHOLLS QC
(One of Her Majesty’s Counsel)
Ms SOPHIE BELGROVE
(of Counsel)
Instructed by:
Baker & McKenzie LLP,
100 New Bridge Street,
London, EC4V 6JA
For the Respondents
MR RAVI MEHTA
(of Counsel_
Instructed by:
Keystone Law
48 Chancery Lane
London WC2A 1JF
UKEAT/0030/20/JOJ
SUMMARY
WHISLEBLOWING, PROTECTED DISCLOSURES
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
Appeal against refusal by the Employment Judge to strike out Dr Armes’ c laims under
sections 47B, 103A and 100(1)(c) Employment Rights Act 1996. The application to strike
out was made on the basis that Dr Armes had no reasonable prospect of establishing that
his pleaded disclosures were “qualifying disclosures” within the meaning of section
43B(1), or health and safety disclosures within the meaning of section 100(1)(c) of the 1996
Act.
Held: the Employment Judge had erred in law in f ailing to identify the information w hich
was said to have been disclosed in each of Dr Armes’ pleaded disclosures and to consider
whether that information was capable of satisfying the relevant statutory definitions. Six
of the seven disclosures had no reasonable prospect of satisfying those definitions and
would therefore be struck out subject to Dr Armes having the opportunity to apply to
amend his pleaded case within 28 days.
Consideration of the interpretation and application of section 43B(1) of the 1996 Act in
the light of Kilraine v London Borough of Wandsworth [2018] ICR 1850 CA and Fincham
v HM Prison Service UKEAT/0925/01.
To continue reading
Request your trial