Claimant v Britvic Soft Drinks Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
This was an interim relief application under s.128-132 ERA 1996, not a final hearing. The tribunal found the claimant did not establish that it was 'likely' (a high threshold requiring 'something nearer to certainty than mere probability') that he would succeed in showing his dismissal was for making protected disclosures. The substantive claim remains to be determined at a full hearing.
The tribunal was not satisfied at this interim stage that the claimant's alleged disclosures met the legal definition of protected disclosures under Part IVA ERA 1996, with material shortcomings including whether they were disclosures of information rather than opinions, what wrongdoing was disclosed, and whether the public interest test was met. The substantive claim remains to be determined.
Facts
The claimant was employed as a Team Technician from February 2024 until dismissal on 15 August 2024. In February 2025, he was spoken to about alleged discrepancies in overtime records and went on sick leave. Following an investigation, he was dismissed for authorising and accepting payment for overtime he had not worked, leaving early during overtime periods, and failing to correct overpayments. The claimant alleged he made protected disclosures including in an email on 1 July 2025 about reporting matters to management and becoming a target, and multiple emails in June 2025 about unlawful deduction of wages. He applied for interim relief claiming automatic unfair dismissal for whistleblowing.
Decision
The tribunal dismissed the interim relief application. The judge found the claimant failed to establish the high threshold required for interim relief - that it was 'likely' (something nearer to certainty than mere probability) he would succeed at full hearing. Material shortcomings existed as to whether the alleged disclosures met the legal definition of protected disclosures, and the chronology suggested the disciplinary process began before the alleged disclosures were made. The substantive claims remain to be determined at a full hearing.
Practical note
Interim relief applications require a significantly higher threshold than the balance of probabilities - claimants must show a 'pretty good chance' approaching near certainty of success, and chronology showing disciplinary action commenced before alleged protected disclosures is fatal to causation.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 3200735/2025
- Decision date
- 24 September 2025
- Hearing type
- interim relief
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- manufacturing
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- Team Technician
- Service
- 6 months
Claimant representation
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- lay rep