Claimant v Trustportal Solutions Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found that the claimants did not have a 'pretty good chance' of establishing that the primary reason for dismissal was the protected disclosure. The tribunal could not resolve on untested evidence whether there was a genuine redundancy situation or whether the redundancy was a sham created after the alleged protected disclosure on 8 August 2025. The conflict between the parties' cases required testing at a full hearing.
Facts
Two employees employed since July 2021 by an IT company were given notice of redundancy on 14 August 2025, with termination date of 14 November 2025. They claimed they had made a protected disclosure on 8 August 2025 regarding tax fraud, financial impropriety and unlawful employment practices, and that the redundancy was a sham created to dismiss them for making that disclosure. The respondents claimed the company was in serious financial difficulty from April 2025 and that redundancies were being planned from 29 July 2025, before the alleged protected disclosure.
Decision
The tribunal refused the application for interim relief. The tribunal found that the claimants had not established a 'pretty good chance' of succeeding in proving that the primary reason for dismissal was the protected disclosure. There was a fundamental conflict between the parties' cases - whether there was a genuine redundancy situation or whether it was fabricated after the disclosure - which could not be resolved on untested evidence and required a full hearing.
Practical note
Interim relief applications will fail where there is a fundamental dispute about key facts (such as whether a redundancy situation genuinely existed) that cannot fairly be resolved without testing evidence at a full hearing, even if timing suggests a possible causal link.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 3305150/2025
- Decision date
- 28 October 2025
- Hearing type
- interim relief
- Hearing days
- 2
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- technology
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Service
- 4 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No