Miss C Brown v AB InBev (UK) Ltd: 3302575/2023 and Others
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Case No 3302575/2023
Between
Miss C BrownClaimantAB InBev (UK) LtdRespondent
Before
Employment Judge PostleIn person for claimantMr Rajgopal (instructed by Counsel) for respondentDate 16 October 2025
REASONS
[1]This was an Application by the Claimant for Interim Relief in respect of her claim that she was automatically unfairly dismissed, under s.103A of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (“ERA”) in respect of two alleged Public Interest Disclosures relating to Health and Safety matters, which are said to have taken place on 15 October 2021 and 11 November 2021.[2]In this Tribunal we have had the benefit of Witness Statements from: Mr P Kaur, People Business Partner; Mr Lapinski, the Claimant’s Line Manager; Miss Walker, the Enfield Brewery Manager; and Mr Cameron, Tech Supply MES & PTS Manager Europe, who conducted the disciplinary. Naturally, as it is an Interim Relief Hearing those witnesses did not give oral
evidence.
[3]The Tribunal also had the benefit of a Bundle of documents consisting of 537 pages prepared by the Claimant, a further Bundle prepared on behalf of the Respondents consisting of 166 pages, the Respondent’s Authorities numbering 17 and an extract from the IDS Handbook on whistle blowing. Case Number: 3302575/2023 2[4]Finally, the Tribunal had the benefit of Counsel’s Skeleton Argument.[5]The Tribunal also heard oral submissions from the Claimant and the Respondent.[6]As it is an Interim Relief Hearing, what the Tribunal has to decide is whether it is likely that the Claimant will succeed at a Full Hearing of the unfair dismissal complaint, s.129(1) ERA 1996 and s.163(1) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations Consolidation Act 1992.[7]The statutory test is not whether the claim is ultimately likely to succeed, but whether it appears to the Tribunal that this is likely. A point emphasised by the Employment Appeals Tribunal in London City Airport Limited v Chacko [2013] IRLR610 EAT, in which it was stated, “This requires the Tribunal to carry out an expeditious summary assessment as to how the matter appears on the material available, doing the best it can with the untested evidence advanced by each party.”[8]This obviously involves a far less detailed scrutiny of the parties cases than would ultimately be undertaken at a Full Hearing.[9]It is worth pointing out that the statutory test does not require the Tribunal to make findings of fact, rather it must make a decision as to the likelihood of the Claimant’s success at the Full Hearing of the unfair dismissal complaint based on the material before it. The basic task and function is to make a broad assessment on the material available to try and give the Tribunal a feel and to make prediction about what is likely to happen at the eventual Hearing before a Full Tribunal.[10]When considering the likelihood of the Claimant succeeding at a Tribunal, the correct test to be applied is whether he or she has a pretty good chance of success at the Full Hearing. The Employment Appeal Tribunal has said the burden of proof in an Interim Relief Application was intended to be greater than that at the Full Hearing where the Tribunal need only be satisfied on the balance of probability that the Claimant has made out his or her case, i.e. the 51% or better test.[11]The question at the heart of this case is, was the Claimant dismissed (she has less than two years’ service) for the sole or principal reason she made alleged protected disclosures regarding Health and Safety, or was it because she had been given time to read various documents she had requested regarding her concerns in relation to Health and Safety and when asked to return to the Line by her Line Manager, she refused whereupon the Line Manager then suspended her. Thereafter it is said there were difficulties with the Claimant over her co-operation in respect of the investigation and arranging a Disciplinary Hearing.[12]Clearly, the Claimant has a number of difficult hurdles to overcome in convincing the Tribunal that she has a pretty good chance of success. Case Number: 3302575/2023 3[13]It is accepted, on 15 October 2021 and 11 November 2021, the Claimant had raised concerns about Health and Safety.[14]The question is, were they in the public interest or concern for others in the factory? Was there, in her belief, reasonable belief given the Health and Safety procedures in place at the Respondent’s factory? The Claimant clearly has difficulty with causation in respect of the principal or sole reason for the dismissal. The Claimant may have a difficulty in establishing the protected disclosure was the reason for the dismissal because had the Claimant followed her Line Management’s instruction to return to work on the Line, it is or would appear extremely unlikely the Claimant would ever have been dismissed.[15]In the circumstances I am not convinced that there is a pretty good chance and likelihood of the Claimant succeeding at a Full Hearing. _____________________________ Employment Judge Postle Date: 26 June 2023 Sent to the parties on: 12 July 2023 For the Tribunal Office. Case No: 3302575/2023 1 EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS Claimant Respondent Miss Colette Brown v AB In Bev (UK) Limited
evidence.
[1]The Claimant brought a claim of sex discrimination and public interest disclosure detriment against the Respondent.[2]The case was listed for a final merits hearing, for 10 days, starting on 1 September 2025.[3]On the first day of the hearing, the panel were provided with bundles of documents and witness statements from the Respondent. They did not receive any papers from the Claimant.[4]The Respondent’s counsel and Instructing Solicitor were present in the Tribunal. The Claimant did not attend.[5]The Claimant had emailed the Tribunal on 19 August 2025 requesting a postponement of the hearing. This was not the first time the Claimant had requested a postponement of this hearing, as she had also referred to in May, when she also requested a postponement of a case management hearing in July 2025.[6]On 15 July 2025, before EJ McNeil KC, the Claimant’s applications for postponement of the case management hearing and the final hearing were both rejected.[7]The Claimant applied once again for postponement by way of an email on 19 August 2025. The only material difference in circumstances since the rejection of her previous application was that she attached an email from the NHS confirming a conversation on 13 August, in which the Claimant had agreed that her day surgery on her knee would be rescheduled to 8 September 2025. The Claimant also listed an appointment for a blood test on 2 September and at ENT outpatients on 3 September. The Claimant referred to these as urgent and unavoidable.[8]The Claimant’s application also referred to the fact that she was involved in a housing case in the county court, has limited financial means and cannot afford to travel to the Tribunal. She further indicated that she does not have her own computer and internet connection, but relies on family and friends to allow her to have access to the internet.[9]Finally the Claimant referred to having dyslexia which results in her taking time to process written documents and complaining that she had been placed at a disadvantage by being provided with the bundle on a date after the court orders, having insufficient time to prepare and that no arrangement for reasonable adjustments had been made. The adjustment requested is a postponement to a later date, a letter from the Tribunal listing what further information/documentation is required from her, remote participation, access to transcripts and audio recordings, hard copies of the bundle and clear written communications.[10]The Claimant’s letter also referred to having asked for audio recordings and transcripts of hearings which have not been received. It does not appear that the Claimant had formally applied to HMCTS for the transcripts. She also requested that a medical professional be present at all Tribunal hearings and that reasonable adjustments are implemented.[11]The Claimant’s application appeared to say that she could not travel to an in person hearing and could not attend via CVP due to a lack of technology. She did not, until 2 September suggest that she would be able to join the hearing by telephone. At which point, she did not do so, saying that she had a medical appointment.[12]The Respondent replied to this application on 20 August, setting out that this application had already been made and rejected in July 2025 and that there had been no material change since then.[13]The Respondent relied on the fact that there was no medical evidence as to why it was necessary for the Claimant to schedule this procedure during the period of the listing, or why it would prevent her from attending on any other day of the hearing.[14]The Respondent also highlighted in their letter and in the oral submissions made at the hearing on 1 September, that if this 10 day hearing were to be relisted it would now be pushed out to late 2027/early 2028.[15]The Respondent also addressed the ‘reasonable adjustments’ requested by the Claimant; including the postponement of the hearing until the Claimant is ‘medically fit’. The Respondent submitted that no time line was given to this and that to leave the matter indefinitely was not a reasonable adjustment to make, as the Claimant has not provided medical evidence of when she is likely to be able to participate.[16]The Respondent also highlighted the Claimant’s non compliance with previous orders. She has failed to provide any additional documents as directed, or to provide details of her comparator, or even her own witness statement.[17]In both their written and oral submissions, the Respondent set out that a fair hearing could not occur, if the hearing was postponed to late 2027/early 2028, as this would mean a hearing some 6 years post allegations, which would not be just and equitable. The Respondent also highlighted that some of their witnesses were no longer employed by the Respondent and that two of them had since moved to New Zealand and were therefore unlikely to return to give evidence in person and that doing so by CVP would be difficult due to time differences.[18]The Respondent also made reference to the costs associated with having prepared for the final hearing and instructing counsel, as well as the increased costs of having to deal with the Claimant’s conduct.[19]The Respondent pointed out that if the Claimant was unable to attend either in person or online and that if neither of those situations was likely to change, there would be no benefit in postponing this hearing.[20]Finally the Respondent highlighted that the Claimant’s time and effort appears to have gone into criticism of the Respondent, when in fact the Respondent has delivered the bundle and the witness statements to the Claimant and has repeatedly delivered documents to her, when the Claimant has denied receipt.[21]The Respondent’s written response to the application, offered to provide the Claimant the cost of her travel expenses to attend the hearing or alternatively to loan her equipment in order to access CVP at home via a ‘hotspot’ on the internet.[22]The Respondent provided to the Tribunal, a correspondence bundle running to 234 pages, setting out the correspondence in 2025 between the parties and the Tribunal.[23]The Tribunal decided to allow the Claimant a final opportunity to attend the hearing at 10am on 2 September, before a decision was made on postponement. The Tribunal phoned her to say that she was being sent an email, which explained that as she had internet connection, she was asked to attend online.[24]On 2 September the Claimant phoned the Tribunal to explain that she would not be attending online. She had also sent a further email at 22.37 on 1 September setting out her reasons once again.
The Law
[25]An application can only be considered afresh by a Tribunal where there has been a material change in circumstances. This follows Goldman Sachs Services Ltd v Montali 2002 ICR 1251, EAT which indicated that the Tribunal should follow the same principle set out in the Civil Procedure Rules 1988.[26]It is open to a Tribunal under rule 30 Employment Tribunal Rules 2024, to vary or revoke a previous order, but it must be clear that is used sparingly, in order to ensure that there is finality to litigation. Where there is a material change in circumstances, the issue can be considered with the further information in mind.[27]Rule 32 requires that an application is made for postponement made be made as soon as possible after the need for postponement becomes known.[28]In Pye v Queen Mary University of London EAT 0374/11 it was said that the Tribunal must exercise its discretion with ‘due regard to reason, relevance and fairness’ when considering an application to postpone.[29]There must also be consideration of the overriding objective, (rule 3) including the need to avoid delay, deal with matters fairly and justly and save expense. Matters included in Article 6 ECHR are also relevant such as the right to a fair trial must also be considered and hence the Tribunal can consider the degree of prejudice to each side, whether the parties had a say in the listed day, whether there had been a previous postponement and what the prospect was for the applying party to be well enough to attend within a reasonable time.[30]The Presidential Guidance indicates that once the Tribunal Judge has all the relevant information they should make the decision using their discretion and notify all parties as speedily as possible.[31]Where a party fails to appear at a hearing, the Tribunal should consider any information available about the circumstances of the non- attendance, having made enquiries that are practicable, but may dismiss the claim under rule 47.[32]The Tribunal concluded that the Claimant had accepted multiple medical appointments which clashed with the listing of the hearing, without any attempt to alter the dates of the appointments, or any explanation of why it would not be appropriate to do so.[33]It was accepted that the notification of the surgery did not occur until 12 August when the Claimant spoke with someone at the hospital, but there was no explanation of whether the Claimant had explained to them that she was due to be in a Tribunal hearing on the day that was being offered.[34]Nor was there explanation of the need for any of the other appointments which the Claimant listed which also clashed with the hearing, but were not directly related to the surgery.[35]Furthermore, the Tribunal took into account the fact that the Claimant also asserted that she could not travel to the Tribunal due to lack of funds, nor could she connect remotely. Although the Tribunal noted that the Respondent had offered to arrange taxis to the Tribunal and/or internet connection.[36]Furthermore, the Claimant also indicated that her dyslexia was also preventing her from participating in the process, but she had failed to take any active steps to request transcripts of previous hearings.[37]The Tribunal were satisfied that the Claimant was relying on a number different reasons for her non- attendance, some of which were long term issues which the Claimant could give no date by which she would be able to attend/participate in the hearing. Furthermore, the issues about not being able to travel or to participate online would not be resolved on a future occasion. It was also relevant to note that the re-listing of a 10 day hearing would be in 2027 and therefore the time lapse since the incidents would be over 5 years.[38]The Tribunal also took into account the fact that the Respondent’s witnesses who were ready for this hearing would not be available on a further occasion due to relocation to New Zealand.[39]The Tribunal also considered it relevant to note that the Claimant had failed to comply with the orders to prepare for the hearing, most importantly by not providing a witness statement.[40]In conclusion the Tribunal found that the Claimant was not actively engaging in the litigation process and that delaying this hearing further would be prejudicial to the Respondent. It was also impossible to know when or indeed if, the Claimant would be able to participate in the hearing. Therefore any postponement would not lead to a guarantee of any further final hearing within a reasonable period. On that basis, the Tribunal concluded that the given all the circumstances, the appropriate course was to dismiss the claim. Approved by: Employment Judge Cowen 16 October 2025
The Law
[1]The Claimant did not attend the hearing on 1 and 2 September 2025. Her reasons for not doing so were set out in detail in the Judgment. On 4 November 2025 the Claimant applied for a reconsideration of the Reasons Judgment sent to the parties on 20 October 2025 on the basis that it is in the interests of justice to do so.[2]The Claimant’s difficulties with joining a hearing by CVP and in person were set out in the Judgment. It would not be appropriate or in line with the overriding objective and in the interests of justice to conduct a 10 day hearing over the phone and in any event, this was not suggested by the Claimant at the time, as being possible.[3]It is clear from the Respondent’s reply to this application as well as their submissions at the final hearing that the Claimant was sent a copy of the bundle which was delivered in plenty time for her consideration.[4]The Claimant’s claims for reasonable adjustments were considered at the final hearing, and were not and remain not to be reasonable. The Tribunal will not commission ‘a medical professional’ to be present for a 10 day hearing, nor would it be reasonable to take unspecified ‘safeguarding measures’. The Claimant has failed to attend the hearing, failed to engage Case Number: 3300364/2023, 3302575/2023,3308150/2023 2 with the Tribunal except in writing and failed to justify her requirement for specific adjustments.[5]Furthermore, the Claimant has been told of the requirement to apply to HMCTS for any recording of proceedings which she requires.[6]The reasons for refusing the application to postpone were set out in the Judgment and the reconsideration application provides no further or new information which would give rise to the interests of justice requiring the judgment to be revoked, or amended.[7]Under rule 69 Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2024, “ET Rules of Procedure”, a party can make an application for reconsideration within 14 days of the date on which the original decision was sent or within 14 days from the date that the written reasons were sent, if later.[8]This application is therefore out of time in any event.[9]Further, rule 70(2) states “If the Tribunal considers that there is no reasonable prospect of the original decision being varied or revoked (including, unless there are special reasons, where substantially the same application has already been made and refused), the application must be refused and the tribunal must inform the parties of the refusal.”[10]Under rule 70, ET Rules of Procedure, and having regard to the matters above, I have concluded that there is no reasonable prospect of the judgment being either varied or revoked. Accordingly, this application by the respondent for a reconsideration, is refused.