Claimant v Kinvara Private Hospital Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
This was an interim relief hearing under s.128 ERA 1996, not a final merits hearing. The tribunal refused the interim relief application on the basis that the claimant did not meet the high threshold of showing a 'pretty good chance' of success in establishing either that she made protected disclosures or that the reason for dismissal was whistleblowing rather than misconduct (alleged falsification of a colleague's signature). The substantive claim remains to be heard.
The claimant alleged she made multiple protected disclosures about health and safety matters including out-of-date equipment, inadequate stocks, safety checks not being performed, and competency issues. The tribunal found that while some disclosures had better prospects than others, there was insufficient likelihood of success at the high interim relief threshold due to disputes about the reasonableness of her beliefs and whether matters were in the public interest. The substantive claim has not yet been determined.
Facts
The claimant worked as deputy theatre manager for a private hospital for only two months. She raised multiple concerns about health and safety matters including out-of-date anaesthetic equipment, inadequate medical stocks, safety checks not being performed, and staff competency issues. Some concerns were raised to management, others to the Care Quality Commission. She was dismissed for alleged misconduct - specifically for falsifying the signature of a bank nurse (Kerri Jackson-Laver) on an anaesthetic daily checklist two weeks before dismissal. The claimant denied this. She was also suspended for allegedly taking photographs in breach of GDPR, though this allegation was not pursued and the photographs did not identify any individuals.
Decision
The tribunal refused the interim relief application. The judge found the claimant did not meet the high 'pretty good chance' threshold for success. Several alleged disclosures lacked the necessary factual content and specificity, some were disputed verbal disclosures, and others concerned internal staff relations rather than public interest. Even for the stronger disclosures about equipment and safety, the respondent's investigations found no failings, raising triable issues about the reasonableness of the claimant's beliefs. Crucially, the tribunal was not satisfied there was sufficient likelihood the claimant would prove the reason for dismissal was whistleblowing rather than the alleged misconduct, which could only be determined by hearing and testing evidence at a full hearing.
Practical note
Interim relief applications require a significantly higher threshold than mere balance of probabilities - approaching certainty rather than probability - and this high standard applies to all elements including both the making of protected disclosures and the causal connection to dismissal.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 6033060/2025
- Decision date
- 9 October 2025
- Hearing type
- preliminary
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- healthcare
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- solicitor
Employment details
- Role
- Deputy Theatre Manager
- Service
- 2 months
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No