L M Rebouh v Resolute Corporation Services UK Ltd: 6014325/2025
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Case No 6014325/2025
Between
Lucien Michel RebouhClaimantResolute Corporation Services UK LtdRespondent
Before
Employment Judge LewisRepresented himself for claimantMs A Defriend (instructed by Counsel) for respondentDate 21 January 2026
JUDGMENT
The following claims are struck out:a. Unfair dismissalb. Defamationc. Data protection breachd. Blacklistinge. Wrongful dismissalf. Harassment by the Executive Assistantg. Victimisation
REASONS
[1]The claimant was employed as an office manager from 30 January 2023 to 10 August 2023. He notified ACAS under the early conciliation procedure on 3 March 2025 and ACAS issued its certificate by e-mail on 10 March 2025. The claimant presented his claim form on 23 April 2025.[2]In the claim form, the claimant indicated he was bringing claims for unfair dismissal, victimisation and harassment under the Equality Act 2010, data protection breach, defamation, blacklisting, breach of contract (breach of the implied term of trust and confidence). Section 9.2 of the form refers to 1 of 4 ‘wrongful dismissal’, but the claimant confirmed to me that he did not mean that in the legal sense, but was referring to unfair dismissal.[3]The respondent has applied to strike out the claims in their entirety on a variety of grounds, ie that the complaints of data protection breach, defamation and blacklisting do not fall within the tribunal's jurisdiction. The remaining claims are out of time. The claimant did not have two years’ service to bring a claim for ordinary unfair dismissal. The breach of contract claim falls within the Johnson exclusion zone. Any wrongful dismissal claim has no reasonable prospects of success because the claimant was paid one month in lieu of notice in accordance with his contract. In terms of the harassment and therefore victimisation claim, that the claimant had failed to identify any protected characteristic that he relied on. And finally, that the claims are scandalous and vexatious.[4]This preliminary hearing was arranged to clarify the claimant’s claims if required; to decide if possible some or all of the respondents strike out applications, and further case management as appropriate. The respondent name[5]The respondent withdrew its application to strike out the claim on the basis that it was presented against the incorrect respondent as the claimant was employed by Resolute Corporate Services UK Limited whereas the claim was presented against Resolute Corporate Services UK. The respondent agreed to the claimant amending his claim in this respect and I gave permission to amend the name.[6]There are some matters which have no possible legal basis for an employment tribunal claim and I strike them out, ie:a. I strike out the claim for ordinary unfair dismissal, because it is not in dispute that the claimant did not have the necessary two years minimum service.b. I strike out the claims for data protection breach, defamation and blacklisting. These are not within the employment tribunal’s jurisdiction. There are some employment rights concerning blacklisting, but not in the sense meant by the claimant - apart from anything else, the claimant was not a trade union member.c. I strike out the wrongful dismissal claim, if it existed at all, because he claimant did not mean to bring any such claim. Automatic unfair dismissal[7]The claimant now says that he wants to bring a claim for automatic unfair dismissal for whistle blowing, which does not require any minimum length of service. Such a claim is not set out in his claim form and the facts to support such a claim are also not set out in the claim form. When I asked the claimant what his whistleblowing was, he said that it was telling the CFO and CEO that the Executive Assistant had been leaking confidential about their 2 of 4 personal life and travel, ie had been talking loudly in the office to the team about such matters which she would have been told privately by them. This was not set out in the claim form, or that the claimant was dismissed because he did such whistleblowing. The most that the claimant said in the claim form was that it was a disguised redundancy. The claimant would therefore need permission to amend his claim. I did not give such permission. It is a long time after the event, and the claimant did not set out for me anything which suggested this was likely to be a protected disclosure. Harassment[8]Apart from the question of time limits, there is a legal claim for harassment under the Equality Act 2010 against the Group Financial Controller. I did not deal with any strike out application in relation to that claim. I say more about this in my separate letter to the parties about case management.[9]I do strike out any claim for harassment under the Equality Act against the Executive Assistant, because the claimant is not suggesting that the harassment by her was anything to do with any protected characteristic. The harassment claim cannot stand alone here if it is not under the Equality Act Victimisation[10]The claim for victimisation was not intended to be in the legal sense of the word under the Equality Act. The claimant is not saying that he was dismissed because he had reported the group financial controller's behaviour. He believed he was dismissed because he told senior management that the Executive Assistant was leaking their private information as explained above. The claimant was mainly using the word victimisation to describe how the Executive Assistant was treating him because they had fallen out. I therefore strike out the claim for victimisation under the Equality Act 2010. Breach of Contract[11]I did not today make any decision about whether this was a valid legal claim or about time limits. This will be decided at the next preliminary hearing. I explain this further in my separate letter to the parties about case management.