Mr W Hazell v Tata Technologies EU Ltd: 6012296/2024

EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS

Case No 6012296/2024

Between

Mr W HazellClaimant

Tata Technologies EU LtdRespondent

Before

Employment Judge Perry

In person for claimant

Date 30 June 2025

JUDGMENT

The claimant’s application for interim relief is refused and is dismissed.

REASONS

[1]At the outset of the hearing I clarified the papers that were before me and with the agreement of the parties created a bundle which I had disseminated to them. Where attachments were not displayed the claimant was able to share the contents by logging into the CVP system and sharing them via the JVS screen in the Tribunal room.

[2]The claimant is a layperson and within the bundle I identified a number of cases in which the law was identified. I propose to touch upon the caselaw only briefly.

[3]The settled caselaw makes clear that interim relief applications are to be dealt with by the parties making submissions directing my attention to the relevant parts of the documentary evidence (Raja v Secretary of State for Justice

EAT/0364/09

). The questions for consideration by me in cases such as this involving s.103A ERA are those outlined in general terms by Underhill P in Ministry of Justice v Sarfraz

[2011] IRLR 562

EAT [14] save they need to be adapted to address the change in the statutory regime since then.

[4]The test in section 129 (1) ERA as to likelihood is that in Taplin v C Shippam Limited

[1978] ICR 1068

“Nor do we think that it is right in a case of this kind to ask whether the applicant has proved his case on a balance of probabilities in the sense that he has established a 51% probability of succeeding in his application, ... It seems to us that the section requires that the employee shall establish more clearly that he is likely to succeed than that phrase is capable of suggesting on one meaning.”.

[5]To emphasise the point Underhill P in Sarfraz put it this way “19. ….’likely’ connotes something nearer to certainty than mere probability”.

[6]The rationale for the stringency of that test is that set out in Robinson v Sheikh halid Bin Saqr Al Qasimi (CA)

2021 ICR 1533

(Court of Appeal) “117. … the employee will not have to repay the monies received even if his or her claim ultimately fails. In similar vein, he made the point that the 118 As was common ground before us, the relatively high threshold required by the “likely” test (“pretty good chance of success”) has “priced into it” the serious consequences which follow for an employer if an interim order is made.” Turning now to the respective arguments.

[7]The dismissing officer provides a rationale for her decision in the dismissal letter. That references a WhatsApp message that the claimant does not deny having sent. Whilst the claimant alleges that the protected disclosure he had previously made was the reason for that dismissal the rationale references the breaches of the various respondent’s rules that that message gave rise to and how the claimant failing to have insight into what was confidential information, how that should be treated and that was something that was critical to his role as senior manager fed into her decision.

[8]The claimant’s seniority can be readily identified by the fact that he was paid some £78,000 a year, a bonus, a car, health insurance it appears other benefits in kind.

[9]The claimant’s principal argument appears to be a “but for” argument - I would not have been dismissed had I not blown the whistle. With respect that is placing the cart before the horses in that the necessary causal link needs to be shown to have been caused by the disclosure not inferred from what resulted.

[10]Given the rationale provided by the disciplinary officer I consider the claimant faces a difficult task to succeed in this claim. That assessment ignores the difficulties the respondent states the claimant will also face in showing he made a qualifying disclosure.

[11]Taking that into consideration as well, in my assessment it is not just “unlikely” (in the sense of not simply more than 51%) that he will succeed. I indicated to him that were this matter coming before me on case management, I would have been minded to at least consider if I should list the matter to determine if a deposit order should be made. The test for a deposit order is little reasonable prospects of success. Hence, my assessment based on the summary view I have to take is that the likelihood of success is not only some way from being more likely than not, but it follows a considerable distance from the higher “likely” test required here.

[12]I made it plain however that had an application for a deposit order been made given that I envisage the claim will only take 3 days to try, the additional costs and use of precious tribunal time that would entail, I would have refused it. The purpose of a deposit order is to make a claimant stop and think before proceeding and hopefully the claimant will do just that (I have suggested he should take legal advice before proceeding and I am confident that is exactly what he will do). That of course is not to prejudge the outcome of the matter but merely to ask him to reflect upon the merits. Employment Judge Perry Dated: 10 October 2024 All judgments (apart from those under rule 52) and any written reasons for the judgments are published, in full, online at https://www.gov.uk/employment-tribunal-decisions shortly after a copy has been sent to the claimants and respondents. The ET has no power to refuse to place a judgment or reasons on the online register, or to remove a judgment or reasons from the register once they have been placed there. If you consider that these documents should be anonymised in any way prior to publication, you will need to apply to the ET for an order to that effect under Rule 50 of the ET's Rules of Procedure. Such an application would need to be copied to all other parties for comment and it would be carefully scrutinised by a judge (where appropriate, with panel members) before deciding whether (and to what extent) anonymity should be granted to a party or a witness.

[1]The claimant decided to withdraw his claim in full knowledge of all the circumstances, including that new evidence had come to light during the hearing.

[2]The claimant had the benefit of legal advice before deciding to withdraw his claim, and an adjournment was granted to enable him to take that advice before he did so.

[3]In addition, the claimant himself would have been aware of the new information in advance of the hearing (as it related to an email on which he was blind copied) and the claimant himself has indicated in his application for reconsideration that he deliberately concealed that information until it was revealed during the hearing. To the extent that this resulted in an initially incomplete and potentially misleading understanding of events, that was at least as much due to the claimant as the witness in question. The claimant could have continued with the hearing in order to put forward the accurate version of events (and to explain why he had withheld that highly relevant information from the Tribunal initially), however he chose not to do so.

[4]The claimant’s legal representative confirmed at the hearing that the claimant was happy for the claim to be dismissed on withdrawal. The claimant cannot simply change his mind the following day.

[5]In relation to the claimant’s other correspondence, including the email dated 7 July 2025 the information supplied does not change the fact that the claimant voluntarily withdrew his claim and agreed for it to be dismissed, having taken legal advice, after it came to light that information that the claimant had provided during the disciplinary process and in his witness statement did not appear to be accurate (as he had been provided with information about a third party’s dismissal by the respondent). In any case, Employment Judge Edmonds notes that the information provided relates to separate issues about how information regarding the claimant’s Tribunal claim was treated and whistleblowing / redundancy issues, none of which are relevant to whether or not the claimant was fairly dismissed.

[6]In summary, information came to light during the hearing which potentially damaged the claimant’s case (because of his concealment of that information up to that point). In response to that, the claimant took legal advice and decided to withdraw his claim and to permit it to be dismissed by the Tribunal. The hearing at that point was vacated: had the claimant not withdrawn the claim would have been heard last week and it is anticipated that it would have concluded within the allocated trial window. The claimant appears to have now changed his mind and is seeking to re-open the claim, which would result in a new hearing having to be listed, and nothing in the submissions put forward by the claimant suggests that his decision to withdraw his claim was anything other than a rational decision taken following the benefit of advice. The Tribunal also notes that the claimant does not appear to understand the potential severity of the fact that he appears to have been intending to withhold relevant information from the Tribunal and respondent, which could potentially have amounted to contempt of court had he done so under oath. The claimant’s reconsideration request is refused. Date: 9 July 2025 Approved by