Claimant v Diligenta Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
Interim relief application refused. Tribunal found claimant did not have a 'pretty good chance' of succeeding at final hearing. Doubts existed whether alleged disclosures were protected disclosures, whether they were in the public interest, and whether they were the principal reason for dismissal rather than performance concerns set out in detailed dismissal letter.
Claimant relied on three alleged protected disclosures (15 March, 10 July, 18 July 2025). Tribunal found first may be personal concerns not public interest; second may not be pleaded; third may lack specificity. Significant factual dispute exists about whether disclosures caused dismissal versus performance issues during probation.
Blacklisting claim under s.104F ERA 1996 and Employment Relations Act 1999 (Blacklists) Regulations 2010. Claimant alleged 20 years of blacklisting since 2005 Sellafield incident. Tribunal found claim extremely unfocused, unclear how respondent responsible for actions of previous employers, and respondent's conduct capable of innocent explanation. Not likely to succeed.
Facts
Claimant was employed by respondent for a matter of months and dismissed during extended probationary period. He alleged he made three protected disclosures (15 March, 10 July, 18 July 2025) concerning disability discrimination, blackmail, and failure to hold directors to account. He also alleged he was blacklisted due to trade union membership spanning 20 years since a 2005 Sellafield incident. Respondent dismissed him for performance reasons set out in detailed letter citing four areas of concern. Claimant lacked qualifying service for ordinary unfair dismissal.
Decision
Tribunal refused interim relief application. Judge found claimant did not have a 'pretty good chance' of proving disclosures were protected or were principal reason for dismissal. Blacklisting claim was unfocused and unclear how respondent was responsible for alleged 20-year conspiracy. Respondent's conduct capable of innocent explanation. Claimant conflated test for ordinary unfair dismissal with automatic unfair dismissal test. Claims may proceed to full merits hearing.
Practical note
Interim relief applications require near-certainty of success on every element; allegations linking current dismissal to alleged 20-year blacklisting conspiracy across multiple employers without clear factual foundation will not meet this high threshold.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 8001943/2025
- Decision date
- 29 August 2025
- Hearing type
- preliminary
- Hearing days
- 0.5
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- financial services
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No