Claimant v English Lakes Hotels Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
This was an interim relief application for automatic unfair dismissal under s.103A ERA (whistleblowing). The tribunal found it was not 'pretty likely' the claimant would succeed because: (1) it was unclear whether the emails of 12-13 August disclosed information falling within s.43B as opposed to vague allegations; (2) the claimant had not established a reasonable belief the disclosure was in the public interest (this being a private employment dispute); and (3) even if there were protected disclosures, the chronology worked against the claimant as the investigation predated the alleged disclosures, making causation unlikely. The application for interim relief therefore failed. The substantive claim continues.
The claimant alleged he made protected disclosures in emails on 12 and 13 August 2025 relating to health and safety matters (lawful breaks and waste disposal under ERA 1996 s.44 and s.100 and Workplace Regulations 1992). The tribunal found at the interim relief stage it was not 'pretty likely' these constituted protected disclosures, noting they appeared to be vague allegations rather than disclosure of information, and expressing doubt the claimant could establish reasonable belief they were made in the public interest. The substantive claim continues and will be determined at a future hearing.
Facts
The claimant worked as a kitchen porter from January 2022 until his summary dismissal on 16 September 2025. In the months before dismissal, concerns were raised on both sides. An investigation was launched in July 2025 into specific allegations including threats to another staff member, leaving shift without permission, failing to complete tasks, and disruptive conduct. Before attending the investigation meeting scheduled for 13 August 2025, the claimant sent two emails (12 and 13 August) which he alleges were protected disclosures, asserting that allegations against him concerned lawful sanitary breaks and waste disposal protected under health and safety legislation. The claimant did not attend the investigation meeting. Following an investigation finding a case to answer, he was dismissed. He claimed automatic unfair dismissal for whistleblowing and applied for interim relief. The claimant failed to attend two scheduled interim relief hearings despite technical assistance.
Decision
The tribunal refused the application for interim relief. Employment Judge Dunlop found it was not 'pretty likely' the claimant would succeed at a final hearing because: (1) the emails did not clearly disclose information falling within s.43B but appeared to be vague allegations; (2) the claimant was unlikely to establish reasonable belief the disclosure was in the public interest, this being a private employment dispute; and (3) even if there were protected disclosures, the chronology meant causation was unlikely as the investigation predated the alleged disclosures. The substantive claim continues. A costs application by the respondent relating to the claimant's non-attendance was reserved and will be determined on the papers after the claimant is given an opportunity to respond.
Practical note
For interim relief in whistleblowing cases, tribunals apply a high threshold ('pretty good chance of success') and will carefully scrutinise whether emails contain substantive disclosure of information or merely vague allegations, whether the public interest test is met in private employment disputes, and whether the chronology supports causation where the protected disclosure post-dates the commencement of the process leading to dismissal.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 6035029/2025
- Decision date
- 18 November 2025
- Hearing type
- interim relief
- Hearing days
- 0.5
- Classification
- procedural
Respondent
- Sector
- hospitality
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- kitchen porter
- Service
- 4 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No