Claimant v Diageo Scotland Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal refused the interim relief application because, while it found it probable the claimant would succeed at full hearing, it could not meet the higher 'likely' standard required for interim relief. The claimant could not show with sufficient certainty that the protected disclosures (rather than the manner of her communications and breakdown in working relationships) were the principal reason for dismissal.
Multiple protected disclosures were conceded or found likely to be established, including disclosures about stock discrepancies, unpaid duty, fire safety compliance failures, sexual harassment, and HMRC compliance issues. However, causation between these disclosures and the dismissal was not established to the 'likely' standard required for interim relief.
The claimant alleged various detriments related to her protected disclosures, including sick pay denial and absence management policy breaches, but these were not determined at this preliminary interim relief hearing.
The claimant raised concerns about sexual harassment by Stuart Duncan on 24 July 2024, which the tribunal found likely to constitute a protected disclosure. However, the sex discrimination claim itself was not determined at this interim relief hearing.
Facts
The claimant, a Risk and Customs and Excise Coordinator at a site handling highly flammable ethanol, made multiple protected disclosures about serious compliance and safety failures, stock discrepancies, unpaid duty, fire safety non-compliance, and sexual harassment. She was dismissed on 1 August 2025, within 48 hours of submitting tribunal evidence and 11 days after a case management preliminary hearing. The respondent asserted the dismissal was for 'some other substantial reason', namely breakdown in working relationship due to the claimant's combative tone, volume of emails, and manner of challenging decisions, not the fact of raising concerns.
Decision
The tribunal refused the interim relief application. While the judge found several disclosures were or were likely to be protected disclosures, and found it more probable than not that the claimant would succeed at full hearing, the claimant could not meet the higher 'likely' standard (pretty good chance of success) required for interim relief. The tribunal could not say it was likely the claimant would prove the protected disclosures, rather than her manner of communication and relationship breakdown, were the principal reason for dismissal.
Practical note
In interim relief applications for whistleblowing dismissals, even where protected disclosures are established and there are suspicious circumstances (such as dismissal shortly after tribunal proceedings), the claimant must meet a very high threshold to prove causation when the employer asserts the reason was the manner rather than the fact of raising concerns.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 8000099/2025
- Decision date
- 3 November 2025
- Hearing type
- preliminary
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- manufacturing
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- lay rep
Employment details
- Role
- Risk and Customs and Excise Coordinator
- Salary band
- £30,000–£40,000
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No