Claimant v University of Edinburgh
Outcome
Individual claims
The Tribunal refused interim relief. The claimant failed to provide sufficient specification of the alleged protected disclosures—she did not give fair notice of the substantive information (who, what, when) regarding alleged breaches of the Public Sector Equality Duty or Health and Safety obligations. The Tribunal could not conclude on a summary basis that the claimant had a 'pretty good chance' of establishing that the principal reason for dismissal was protected disclosures, as required by s.128 ERA 1996. The respondent asserted dismissal was for gross misconduct and irretrievable breakdown of the working relationship (SOSR), a potentially fair reason.
Facts
The claimant, a Contracts Manager employed by the University of Edinburgh from March 2020 to May 2025, was dismissed on 1 May 2025 for gross misconduct and irretrievable breakdown of the working relationship. She applied for interim relief, asserting automatic unfair dismissal under s.103A ERA 1996, claiming she made numerous protected disclosures between March 2024 and November 2024 regarding alleged breaches of the Public Sector Equality Duty and health and safety obligations. The University opposed, arguing the dismissal was for some other substantial reason. The claimant is unrepresented and had a prior ongoing claim from October 2024.
Decision
The Tribunal refused the interim relief application. The claimant failed to provide sufficient specification in her pleadings of the alleged protected disclosures—she did not give fair notice of the substantive information (who, what, when) regarding the alleged failures. The Tribunal could not conclude on a summary assessment that the claimant had a 'pretty good chance' of success at a full hearing. The respondent's application for expenses was also refused, given the claimant was unrepresented, unfamiliar with interim relief procedure, and had received no advance costs warning.
Practical note
Interim relief applications require very detailed pleadings with full particularity of alleged protected disclosures; vague assertions about breaches of legal obligations without specifying who did what and when will fail to meet the high 'pretty good chance of success' threshold.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 8001688/2024
- Decision date
- 29 August 2025
- Hearing type
- interim
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- education
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- solicitor
Employment details
- Role
- Contracts Manager
- Service
- 5 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No