Claimant v JSW Steel (UK) Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
Interim relief application was refused. The judge found the claimant had not demonstrated a 'pretty good chance' of showing the dismissal was principally because of protected disclosures. The judge found the claimant likely failed to disclose 'information' as required (rather than mere opinion/advice), and that redundancy was not shown to be fabricated. The full merits hearing has not yet occurred.
The tribunal found at the interim relief stage that it was not 'likely' the claimant would establish he made protected disclosures: the conversations appeared to be advice/opinion rather than disclosure of information tending to show breach of legal obligations under FEMA; reasonable belief in public interest was not demonstrated; and causation (principal reason for dismissal) was not established. However, this is an interim assessment only and the full merits have not been heard.
The claimant also brought an 'ordinary' unfair dismissal claim under s.98 ERA. The respondent asserts the reason was redundancy. The tribunal has made no finding on this claim at the interim relief stage and it remains to be determined at a full merits hearing.
Facts
The claimant, a Vice President Finance employed since 2016, was dismissed on 31 July 2025. He alleged he made protected disclosures in March 2025 when he advised against making a payment for a family member's medical treatment through company funds, citing potential breaches of Indian foreign exchange law (FEMA). Within days of these conversations, he claims he was told the company was considering terminating his contract. The respondent contends the dismissal was due to a genuine redundancy following a cost-cutting exercise decided in January 2025, with recruitment for a replacement lower-level role beginning in February 2025.
Decision
The tribunal refused the claimant's application for interim relief. The judge found the claimant had not demonstrated a 'pretty good chance' of succeeding at a full hearing. The alleged disclosures appeared to be advice or opinion rather than disclosure of information as required by law. The judge also found the claimant had not shown the redundancy was fabricated, and interim relief is not available in genuine redundancy cases. The full merits hearing remains to be determined.
Practical note
Interim relief applications in whistleblowing dismissal cases face a high bar: advice or opinion about legal risks does not constitute disclosure of 'information', and interim relief is not available where a genuine redundancy process is evidenced, even if timing appears suspicious.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 6029127/2025
- Decision date
- 22 September 2025
- Hearing type
- interim
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- manufacturing
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- (Associate) Vice President, Finance
- Salary band
- £100,000+
- Service
- 9 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister