Claimant v Asda Stores Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
Application for interim relief only. Main claim of unfair dismissal not yet determined at full merits hearing.
Claimant alleged dismissal was for making protected disclosures under s.103A ERA, but failed to specify what disclosures were made, to whom, when or how. Tribunal found claimant had not demonstrated 'pretty good chance of success' at this interim stage.
Claimant made sweeping statements about whistleblowing but provided no particulars of alleged protected disclosures. Did not satisfy the high burden required for interim relief.
Claimant mentioned detriments but provided insufficient detail at this interim stage. Full merits hearing not yet held.
Claimant made general claims of discrimination in ET1 but no specifics provided. Not determined at this interim relief hearing.
Mentioned in claim form but not addressed at interim relief hearing. Awaits full merits determination.
Claimant mentioned 'other payments' in claim form but provided no detail. Not determined at interim relief stage.
Facts
The claimant was employed as a checkout operator by Asda from December 2010. He was absent due to sickness from late November 2023 and did not return. After the claimant failed to attend three scheduled capability meetings, the respondent dismissed him for ill-health capability on 25 August 2025, with notice to terminate on 6 November 2025. The claimant filed an ET1 on 5 September 2025 claiming automatic unfair dismissal for whistleblowing, along with other claims, and applied for interim relief under s.128 ERA.
Decision
Employment Judge Sudra refused the application for interim relief. The claimant failed to provide any particulars of what protected disclosures he had allegedly made, to whom, when, or how. The tribunal found the claimant had not satisfied the high burden required for interim relief—demonstrating it is 'likely' (a 'pretty good chance') that he will succeed at a full hearing in proving his dismissal was for making protected disclosures rather than for ill-health capability.
Practical note
Interim relief applications require clear, specific pleading of protected disclosures and a 'pretty good chance of success'—sweeping allegations and failure to particularise will result in refusal even at this early stage.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 2308538/2025
- Decision date
- 26 September 2025
- Hearing type
- interim
- Hearing days
- 0.375
- Classification
- procedural
Respondent
- Sector
- retail
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- Checkout operator
- Service
- 15 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No