Claimant v Wilson James Ltd
Outcome
Individual claims
This was a preliminary hearing on an interim relief application under sections 103A and 128 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The tribunal found that the application was not well-founded because it did not appear likely that the tribunal would ultimately find the claimant was unfairly dismissed for making a protected disclosure. The substantive whistleblowing claim remains to be determined at a full hearing.
Facts
The claimant applied for interim relief under the Employment Rights Act 1996 claiming she had been automatically unfairly dismissed for making a protected disclosure (whistleblowing). The preliminary hearing was held remotely to determine whether the high threshold for interim relief was met. The tribunal heard submissions from the claimant, who represented herself, and from the respondent's lay representative.
Decision
Employment Judge Dimbylow dismissed the interim relief application, finding it was not well-founded. The judge concluded it did not appear likely that the tribunal would ultimately find the claimant was automatically unfairly dismissed for whistleblowing. The substantive whistleblowing claim itself was not determined and will proceed to a full hearing.
Practical note
Interim relief applications in whistleblowing cases require the tribunal to find it 'likely' the claim will succeed at full hearing, which is a high threshold to meet at a preliminary stage.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 6033653/2025
- Decision date
- 7 November 2025
- Hearing type
- preliminary
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Name
- Wilson James Ltd
- Sector
- professional services
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- lay rep
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No