Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal refused interim relief, finding that while the claimant may succeed at a full hearing, there were substantial factual disputes that needed to be resolved and it could not be concluded that it was 'pretty likely' the claimant would establish that the sole or principal reason for dismissal was making a protected disclosure. The respondent claimed the dismissal was for some other substantial reason (SOSR) due to relationship breakdown.
The application for interim relief under s.128 ERA 1996 was refused. The tribunal found clear factual disputes over whether there was a qualifying disclosure, whether it was in the public interest, whether the respondent was aware of the alleged disclosure to Leeds Safeguarding at the time of dismissal, and the true reason for dismissal. The claimant alleged a protected disclosure to Leeds Safeguarding in March 2025, but the respondent claimed no knowledge of this until seeing the tribunal documents.
Facts
The claimant was employed as a clinical support worker providing personal care to the respondent, an individual, from April 2019 to August 2025. She was suspended in July 2025 and dismissed on 1 August 2025 after failing to attend a meeting. The respondent stated the reason was SOSR due to irretrievable relationship breakdown, citing incidents including extreme aggression towards the respondent's daughter and an argumentative attitude. The claimant alleged she was dismissed for making a protected disclosure to Leeds Safeguarding in March 2025 and applied for interim relief.
Decision
The tribunal refused the application for interim relief. The judge found that while the claimant may succeed at a full hearing, there were substantial factual disputes about whether there was a qualifying disclosure, whether it was in the public interest, whether the respondent knew of it, and the true reason for dismissal. The claimant did not meet the 'pretty good chance of success' threshold required for interim relief under Taplin v C Shipham Ltd.
Practical note
Interim relief applications in whistleblowing dismissal cases require a 'pretty good chance of success' (higher than balance of probabilities), and will fail where there are significant factual disputes about whether the employer knew of the disclosure and the true reason for dismissal.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 6032709/2025
- Decision date
- 26 September 2025
- Hearing type
- interim relief
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Name
- Denise Griffiths
- Sector
- healthcare
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- lay rep
Employment details
- Role
- clinical support worker
- Service
- 6 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No