Cases6028657/2025

Claimant v London General Transport Services Limited

17 October 2025Before Employment Judge FrenchWatford

Outcome

Claimant fails

Individual claims

Automatic Unfair Dismissalnot determined

Interim relief application refused. Tribunal not satisfied claimant had a 'pretty good chance' of proving that protected disclosures were the principal reason for dismissal. Issues remained regarding whether disclosures were made in the public interest, and whether dismissal was due to manner of complaints rather than fact of making them. Evidence suggested breakdown in relationship and conduct issues as alternative reasons for dismissal.

Whistleblowingnot determined

Claimant relied on 15 alleged protected disclosures. Tribunal found insufficient evidence at interim stage that claimant had a pretty good chance of proving disclosures were made in reasonable belief they were in the public interest. Some disclosures (regarding hijab/niqab and Eid celebration) raised concerns about religious intolerance and whether they could be in the public interest. Full merits hearing required to determine protected disclosure status.

Facts

Claimant was a bus driver for respondent who made 15 alleged protected disclosures relating to various workplace concerns including female drivers wearing hijab/niqab, celebration of Eid, wipes ingredients, and other matters. His final disclosure was made on 29 July 2025, two days before his dismissal on 31 July 2025. Respondent dismissed claimant citing breakdown in relationship, him being unmanageable, and the manner in which he pursued complaints. Claimant had previously raised a grievance against the dismissing manager, Mark Cambridge. Dismissal letter referenced the number of complaints made by claimant.

Decision

Tribunal refused interim relief application. Judge found claimant did not have a 'pretty good chance' of proving principal reason for dismissal was protected disclosures. Concerns included whether disclosures were made in public interest (particularly those regarding religious matters), whether dismissal was due to manner rather than fact of complaints, evidence of relationship breakdown and conduct issues, and potential personal agenda by dismissing manager unrelated to disclosures.

Practical note

Interim relief for whistleblowing dismissals requires near certainty of success; tribunals will carefully distinguish between protected disclosures themselves and the manner in which complaints are pursued, and will consider alternative explanations for dismissal at this early stage.

Legal authorities cited

Parsons v Airplus International Ltd EAT 0023/16Royal Mail Limited v Jhuti [2019] UKSC 55Shinwari v Vue Entertainment Ltd UKEAT/0394/14Taplin v C Shippam [1978] IRLR 450Ministry of Justice v Sarfraz [2011] IRLR 562Kilraine v London Borough of Wandsworth [2018] ICR 1850Babula v Waltham Forest College [2007] ICR 1026Dobbie v Felton t/a Feltons Solicitors [2021] IRLR 679

Statutes

ERA 1996 s.43BERA 1996 s.103AERA 1996 ss.128-129

Case details

Case number
6028657/2025
Decision date
17 October 2025
Hearing type
interim
Hearing days
1
Classification
contested

Respondent

Sector
transport
Represented
Yes
Rep type
barrister

Employment details

Role
Driver

Claimant representation

Represented
No