Claimant v Amazon Web Services EMA SARL, UK Branch
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal concluded the claimant did not meet the threshold for interim relief under s103A ERA 1996. While it was arguable the claimant made qualifying protected disclosures, whether they were made in the public interest was not clearly obvious. Crucially, the claimant did not demonstrate a 'pretty good chance' that the principal reason for dismissal was protected disclosures rather than ill-health capability, given substantial evidence of a detailed capability procedure and lack of evidence of clear return to work.
Facts
The claimant was dismissed by Amazon Web Services and brought a second claim alleging automatic unfair dismissal for whistleblowing, applying for interim relief. He had previously brought a first claim and had been found to be disabled with severe depression and generalised anxiety. The claimant alleged five protected disclosures between December 2021 and July 2025 relating to discrimination, health and safety, and procedural failures. The respondent argued the dismissal was due to ill-health capability following an extended absence with no clear path to return to work.
Decision
The tribunal refused the interim relief application. While it was arguable the claimant made qualifying protected disclosures, particularly his tribunal claim and formal grievance, the question of whether they were made in the public interest was not clearly obvious. Critically, the claimant failed to establish a 'pretty good chance' that the principal reason for dismissal was protected disclosures, given substantial evidence of a detailed ill-health capability process and lack of evidence of imminent return to work.
Practical note
Interim relief applications for whistleblowing require demonstrating not only that protected disclosures were made, but a 'pretty good chance' that they were the principal reason for dismissal - a threshold that is difficult to meet on a summary basis where there is substantial evidence of a legitimate alternative reason such as capability.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 6028977/2025
- Decision date
- 10 September 2025
- Hearing type
- preliminary
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- technology
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Claimant representation
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister