Claimant v Denny Enterprises International Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found it was not likely the claimant would succeed at full hearing, principally because: (1) the claimant's beliefs regarding legal breaches and health and safety risks may not have been reasonably held given the respondent's explanation about legitimate label changes; (2) evidence suggested the claimant was dismissed on 28 April 2025, before making the alleged protected disclosures on 29 April 2025, and for unrelated performance/conduct reasons. The application for interim relief was therefore refused but the substantive claim will proceed to full hearing.
The claimant alleged detriment by reason of making protected disclosures (regarding backdating expiry dates on chemical products). This claim was not the subject of the interim relief application and remains to be determined at full hearing.
Facts
The claimant alleged he was dismissed on 29 April 2025 after making protected disclosures that same day regarding the respondent backdating expiry dates on chlorine-based swimming pool chemicals. He emailed his line manager refusing to participate and reported the matter to the HSE. The respondent argued the claimant was actually dismissed on 28 April 2025, the day before the disclosures, for performance/conduct reasons including working on personal business during company time. The respondent also claimed the label changes were legitimate corrections authorized by the manufacturer.
Decision
The tribunal refused the application for interim relief, finding it was not likely the automatic unfair dismissal claim would succeed at full hearing. The tribunal could not determine whether the claimant's beliefs about legal breaches and health and safety risks were reasonably held, and critically, evidence suggested dismissal occurred on 28 April 2025 before the protected disclosures on 29 April 2025, making causation unlikely to be established.
Practical note
An interim relief application in a whistleblowing dismissal case will fail if the chronology suggests dismissal occurred before the alleged protected disclosures were made, and if the reasonableness of the claimant's beliefs underlying the disclosures remains genuinely disputed.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 8001071/2025
- Decision date
- 4 November 2025
- Hearing type
- interim
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- manufacturing
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- solicitor
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No