Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal refused the application for interim relief under section 128 ERA 1996. The judge concluded it was not 'pretty likely' the claimant would succeed in establishing dismissal was for making a protected disclosure, noting substantial factual disputes requiring determination at full hearing and multiple issues leading to the disciplinary procedure beyond the alleged disclosure.
The substantive claim under section 103A ERA 1996 (dismissal for making protected disclosure) has not yet been determined. The tribunal was not satisfied on the interim relief test that the claimant had a 'pretty good chance of success' at the full merits hearing, but the claim itself remains live.
The claimant also alleged dismissal under section 100 ERA 1996 (health and safety grounds). This has not been determined at this interim stage and awaits full hearing.
Facts
The claimant, an engineer, was dismissed by Airvending Limited and applied for interim relief claiming dismissal for making a protected disclosure. He had previously filed discrimination claims in 2024 regarding disability discrimination, harassment, victimisation and failure to make reasonable adjustments. The alleged protected disclosure was an email dated 1 August 2024 complaining about pressure on engineers and potential constructive dismissal and discrimination. The respondent denied the dismissal was related to any disclosure, citing performance concerns and workload adjustment issues.
Decision
Employment Judge Shepherd refused the interim relief application. The judge was not satisfied it was 'pretty likely' the claimant would succeed at full hearing in establishing the dismissal was for making a protected disclosure. There were substantial factual disputes requiring full hearing determination, and multiple issues appeared to have led to the disciplinary procedure beyond the alleged disclosure.
Practical note
Interim relief applications for whistleblowing dismissals face a high threshold requiring a 'pretty good chance of success', not merely reasonable prospects, and will be refused where substantial factual disputes exist that can only be resolved at full hearing.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 6032503/2025
- Decision date
- 24 September 2025
- Hearing type
- interim
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- other
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- engineer
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No