Claimant v Channel 4 Television Corporation

Interim relief application refused. Judge found the claimant did not establish he had a 'pretty good chance' of proving the principal reason for dismissal was the protected disclosure. While the claimant may have made a protected disclosure on 18 July, and timing favoured his case, the respondent presented strong reasons related to poor communication style, gatekeeping, and inability to fulfil role during probationary period. Full merits hearing required to determine causation.

Claimant alleged protected disclosures made on 18 July 2025 via emails to senior management (Martin Baker and Grace Boswood) regarding unauthorised vendor presentation undermining governance structure and regulatory compliance. Also alleged disclosure to Boswood on 25 July (disputed by respondent) and possibly 21 July. Judge found it entirely possible a protected disclosure was made on 18 July but not determined at interim relief stage.

Application refused under s.129 ERA 1996. Judge concluded claimant did not demonstrate it is 'likely' (i.e. having a pretty good chance nearer to certainty than mere probability) that his automatic unfair dismissal claim will succeed. Issues remained regarding whether disclosures were made on all alleged dates, whether they met legal requirements, and crucially whether any protected disclosure was the principal reason for dismissal.