Claimant v The Inspire Multi Academy Trust
Outcome
Individual claims
This was an interim relief hearing, not a final merits hearing. The tribunal concluded that the claimant was NOT 'likely' to succeed at trial because he was unlikely to establish he reasonably believed his disclosure was made in the public interest, and because the evidence suggested the disciplinary panel had a genuine belief in misconduct based on CCTV, text messages, and witness statements. The timing of events did not make it 'likely' the real reason was the protected disclosure. Application for interim relief dismissed.
Claimant alleged detriment on grounds of making a protected disclosure. This was listed as one of three complaints in the ET1 but was not the subject of the interim relief application, which focused solely on dismissal. The claim was not determined at this preliminary hearing.
Victimisation was listed as one of the three complaints in the ET1 but was not the subject of the interim relief application. The claim was not determined at this preliminary hearing.
Facts
The claimant, a caretaker employed from March 2024 to October 2025, sent an email on 14 July 2025 to the respondent's safeguarding lead reporting that an agency kitchen manager had made inappropriate physical contact with him, which he described as sexual harassment. On 17 July he was invited to a meeting about this and 'other points', which later formed the basis of allegations against him. He was suspended on 4 August, investigated, and summarily dismissed on 22 October 2025 for gross misconduct, including sending inappropriate messages to the headteacher, leaving unwanted gifts on her desk, and erratic behaviour. The claimant applied for interim relief, alleging his dismissal was due to his protected disclosure of 14 July.
Decision
The tribunal dismissed the claimant's application for interim relief. While the claimant had a reasonable prospect of proving he disclosed information about a breach of legal obligation, he was not 'likely' to establish he reasonably believed the disclosure was in the public interest. More importantly, the tribunal found it was not 'likely' he would succeed in proving the reason for dismissal was his disclosure, as the evidence showed the disciplinary panel had a genuine belief in misconduct based on CCTV, text messages, and witness statements, and dismissal was not obviously disproportionate.
Practical note
An interim relief application under s.128 ERA 1996 requires a 'pretty good chance' of success on all elements, including public interest belief and causation; proximity in time alone is insufficient where the employer has evidenced genuine belief in gross misconduct.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 6037963/2025
- Decision date
- 26 November 2025
- Hearing type
- preliminary
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- education
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- lay rep
Employment details
- Role
- caretaker
- Service
- 2 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No