Claimant v Signet Trading Ltd
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal was not satisfied the claimant was likely to establish he made protected disclosures in the public interest or that his belief they were in the public interest was reasonable. The evidence suggested dismissal was due to irretrievable breakdown in working relationship, not protected disclosures. Temporal proximity arguments undermined by earliest disclosure being 17 months before dismissal.
Claimant alleged multiple protected disclosures between March 2024 and July 2025 concerning health and safety, occupational health recommendations, holiday pay, and data protection. However, claimant failed to establish disclosures were in public interest rather than his own personal interest, and failed to demonstrate likely causal link between disclosures and dismissal.
Facts
Claimant was dismissed in August 2025 and applied for interim relief claiming automatic unfair dismissal for whistleblowing. He alleged making multiple protected disclosures between March 2024 and July 2025 concerning health and safety, occupational health recommendations, holiday pay, and data protection. The respondent stated the claimant was dismissed due to irretrievable breakdown in the working relationship after the claimant refused to engage in discussions about returning to work unless certain conditions were met, including removal of a colleague from the workplace. The claimant had already filed a previous claim including constructive unfair dismissal while still employed.
Decision
The tribunal refused the application for interim relief. The claimant failed to establish it was likely he would succeed at a final hearing in proving he made protected disclosures in the public interest, or that the reason for dismissal was those disclosures rather than the breakdown in working relationship. The tribunal found the alleged disclosures lacked specificity, appeared to be in the claimant's personal interest rather than public interest, and the temporal proximity argument was undermined by the earliest disclosure being 17 months before dismissal.
Practical note
Interim relief for whistleblowing dismissal requires clear evidence that disclosures were made in the public interest and not merely for personal grievances, with temporal proximity alone insufficient to demonstrate causal link to dismissal.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 6029784/2025
- Decision date
- 2 September 2025
- Hearing type
- interim relief
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- retail
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No