Claimant v Centrica plc
Outcome
Individual claims
Interim relief application refused. Tribunal found claimant did not demonstrate a 'pretty good chance' of success for automatic unfair dismissal under s.103A ERA (whistleblowing). Protected disclosures were insufficiently particularised in the ET1: first disclosure lacked detail on when, to whom, and how made; second disclosure (March 2023 bullying complaint) appeared to be allegations rather than information disclosures; third disclosure (April 2024) did not specify what concerns were raised or how they met s.43B definitions. Significant factual dispute exists regarding reason for dismissal.
Interim relief application refused. Tribunal found claimant did not demonstrate a 'pretty good chance' of success for automatic unfair dismissal under s.104F(1) ERA (blacklisting). Claimant failed to clearly plead how respondent compiled, used, sold or supplied a prohibited list under the Employment Relations Act 1999 (Blacklists) Regulations 2010. References to alleged industry-wide blacklisting and treatment by previous employers (including Sellafield) did not establish wrongdoing by this respondent or that a prohibited list within Regulation 3 was involved.
Facts
The claimant applied for interim relief following dismissal by Centrica plc, alleging automatic unfair dismissal under s.103A ERA (whistleblowing) and s.104F ERA (blacklisting). He claimed to have made three sets of protected disclosures between July 2022 and May 2024 concerning data issues, workplace harassment/bullying (March 2023), and concerns raised with Jana Siber (April 2024). He also alleged he was blacklisted due to treatment at a previous employer, Sellafield, where he said he had been assaulted. The interim relief hearing proceeded on written submissions and documents only, with no oral evidence. The claimant represented himself; the respondent was represented by counsel.
Decision
Employment Judge Macleod refused the interim relief application. The tribunal found the claimant had not demonstrated a 'pretty good chance' of success on either claim. The whistleblowing claim failed because the three alleged protected disclosures were insufficiently particularised in the ET1 - they lacked detail about when, how and to whom disclosures were made, and appeared to be allegations rather than disclosures of information. The blacklisting claim failed because the claimant did not clearly plead how the respondent had compiled, used, sold or supplied a prohibited list under the 2010 Regulations. The judge emphasized the decision was based solely on the pleadings as they stood, not on additional materials, and had no bearing on any final judgment after a full merits hearing.
Practical note
Interim relief applications require careful and detailed pleading: vague references to disclosures or complaints without specifying their content, timing, and legal basis will not meet the high 'pretty good chance' threshold.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 8001075/2024
- Decision date
- 29 August 2025
- Hearing type
- preliminary
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Name
- Centrica plc
- Sector
- energy
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No