Claimant v Capital Maintenance Limited

The tribunal found that the purported protected disclosures did not have the quality of disclosing information tending to show a breach of health and safety law. Instead, they were disclosures made in defence to allegations against the claimant. The tribunal concluded there was not a pretty good chance of succeeding at final hearing, as the employer's reason for dismissal (gross misconduct relating to use of unvetted contractors and undisclosed conflict of interest) stood up to scrutiny.

The claimant alleged he made three protected disclosures relating to health and safety. The tribunal found these did not constitute qualifying protected disclosures under section 43B ERA 1996. The disclosures were information put forward in defence to allegations rather than information tending to show health and safety breaches. The claimant failed to demonstrate that it was likely the tribunal at final hearing would find these were protected disclosures.

Application refused. The tribunal was not satisfied that there was a 'pretty good chance' the claimant would succeed in his automatic unfair dismissal claim at final hearing. The tribunal found it unlikely that the claimant made qualifying protected disclosures and that the likely reason for dismissal was gross misconduct, not any protected disclosures.