Cases3305348/2025

Claimant v Egnaro Limited

14 November 2025Before Employment Judge BartlettWatfordremote video

Outcome

Other

Individual claims

Interim Reliefwithdrawn

Claimant withdrew the application for interim relief after discovering it would require him to return to work for the respondent rather than receive payment pending final hearing. The application was therefore dismissed.

Automatic Unfair Dismissalnot determined

Claim under section 103A ERA for automatic unfair dismissal for making a protected disclosure remains pending. The tribunal noted the claimant could not identify the specific disclosure, when it was made or to whom, and respondent asserts dismissal was for other reasons including lateness and attitude. Final hearing yet to be determined.

Whistleblowingnot determined

The underlying protected disclosure claim relating to the claimant's complaint about his phone being taken, damaged and returned by an irate customer has not yet been determined at a full hearing. The tribunal found insufficient clarity at the interim relief stage to identify the qualifying disclosure.

Facts

The claimant was dismissed by the respondent and claims it was because he made a protected disclosure under the whistleblowing provisions. The incident appears to involve his phone being taken, damaged and returned by an irate customer. The respondent asserts the dismissal was for other reasons including lateness and attitude. The claimant applied for interim relief under section 128 ERA.

Decision

The tribunal refused the application for interim relief. The claimant withdrew it after learning that interim relief meant reinstatement or re-engagement rather than payment pending final hearing. The judge noted that even if the application had proceeded, it would have failed because the claimant could not identify the specific disclosure, when it was made or to whom.

Practical note

Interim relief applications in whistleblowing cases require clear identification of the protected disclosure and a 'pretty good chance' of success - a standard nearer to certainty than probability - and only result in reinstatement or re-engagement, not compensation.

Legal authorities cited

Ministry of Justice v Sarfraz [2011] IRLR 562Al Qasimi v Robinson EAT 0283/17Dandpat v University of Bath UKEAT/0408/09Wollenberg v Global Gaming Ventures (Leeds) Ltd UKEAT/0053/18Parsons v Airplus UKEAT/0023/16/JOJTaplin v C Shippam Ltd [1978] IRLR 450

Statutes

ERA 1996 s.43C-43HERA 1996 s.43BERA 1996 s.103AERA 1996 s.129ERA 1996 s.128

Case details

Case number
3305348/2025
Decision date
14 November 2025
Hearing type
preliminary
Hearing days
1
Classification
contested

Respondent

Sector
other
Represented
Yes
Rep type
lay rep

Claimant representation

Represented
No