Claimant v Trelya
Outcome
Individual claims
This was an interim relief application under s.128 ERA 1996. The tribunal found it was not likely that the claimant would succeed at full hearing in establishing that protected disclosures were the principal reason for dismissal. While some disclosures may have qualified, causation was the main issue - the respondent's case was that dismissal resulted from the claimant's refusal to accept probationary development points, not the disclosures themselves. The interim relief application was dismissed.
The claimant brought disability discrimination claims alongside whistleblowing, but the interim relief hearing focused solely on the whistleblowing aspects under s.128. The disability discrimination claims were not addressed at this preliminary stage and remain to be determined at a future full hearing.
Facts
The claimant worked as a Community Health and Wellbeing Worker for a charity from March to September 2025. She raised concerns about safety protocols for outreach work in unknown households, arguing her team lacked risk information and safety equipment. Her probation was extended in September 2025 citing lack of confidence in outreach work. When she refused to sign the probationary extension letter, her employment was terminated on 30 September 2025. She claimed the dismissal was because of her protected disclosures about health and safety.
Decision
The tribunal dismissed the interim relief application. While some disclosures may have qualified as protected disclosures made in the public interest to appropriate recipients, the tribunal found it was not likely the claimant would succeed on causation. The evidence suggested dismissal resulted from her refusal to accept probationary development points, not her disclosures. The respondent had been receptive to health and safety concerns raised.
Practical note
Interim relief applications for whistleblowing dismissals require a 'pretty good chance' of success on all elements including causation, which remains the key battleground even where protected disclosures are likely established.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 6036897/2025
- Decision date
- 22 October 2025
- Hearing type
- interim
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Name
- Trelya
- Sector
- charity
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- Community Health and Wellbeing Worker
- Service
- 6 months
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No