Claimant v Greenwich Students' Union
Outcome
Individual claims
Original claim filed on 13/12/2024 alleging unlawful discrimination under the Equality Act 2010 based on race. The interim relief hearing did not determine this claim; it remains pending for final hearing.
Claimant amended claim on 29/3/2025 to add whistleblowing allegations based on the same matters as race discrimination. The interim relief application failed because the claimant did not sufficiently particularise the six alleged protected disclosures or establish a causal link to dismissal with the requisite high degree of certainty. The substantive claim remains to be determined at final hearing.
Claimant relied upon dismissal and suspension on paid leave on 29/10/2024 as detriments. The interim relief application did not determine these claims substantively; they remain pending. The tribunal found insufficient particulars to assess likelihood of success at the interim stage.
The claimant's application for interim relief under s.129 ERA 1996 failed and was dismissed. The tribunal found the claimant did not meet the high burden of demonstrating a 'pretty good chance of success' because the six alleged protected disclosures lacked specificity regarding content, dates, recipients, and method of communication, making it impossible to assess the causal link to dismissal. The claim was insufficiently pleaded to support interim relief.
Facts
Claimant was dismissed by Greenwich Students' Union on 6/8/2025, allegedly by reason of redundancy. He originally filed a race discrimination claim on 13/12/2024, then amended on 29/3/2025 to add whistleblowing allegations based on the same matters. The claimant alleged six protected disclosures and applied for interim relief within seven days of dismissal. The claimant was suspended on paid leave on 29/10/2024. Despite being ordered to particularise his disclosures, the claimant provided limited information without dates, recipients, or specific content of the alleged disclosures.
Decision
The tribunal dismissed the interim relief application because the claimant failed to meet the high burden required. The six alleged protected disclosures lacked sufficient specificity - no dates, recipients, methods of communication, or precise wording were provided. This made it impossible to assess whether there was a 'pretty good chance of success' or to establish a causal link between the disclosures and the dismissal. The claim was insufficiently pleaded to support interim relief, though the substantive claims remain to be determined at a final hearing.
Practical note
Interim relief applications require detailed particularisation of protected disclosures including dates, recipients, content, and method of communication to establish the requisite 'pretty good chance of success' - vague allegations without specificity will fail regardless of underlying merit.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 6021845/2024
- Decision date
- 8 September 2025
- Hearing type
- interim relief
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- education
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No