Claimant v NHS Lanarkshire
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found that the claimant did not have a 'pretty good chance' of establishing that he made protected disclosures, nor that any such disclosures were the sole or principal reason for dismissal. The tribunal examined multiple alleged disclosures from 2022 to 2025 and found none likely to meet the statutory criteria. Without establishing protected disclosures, the automatic unfair dismissal claim under s.103A ERA 1996 cannot succeed, and the interim relief application was therefore refused.
The claimant alleged disability discrimination including harassment and victimisation, relying on mental health conditions. The tribunal noted this was not the focus of the interim relief hearing and did not determine whether the claimant was disabled or whether discrimination occurred.
The claimant alleged detriment on grounds of making protected disclosures. This claim was not determined at the interim relief hearing, which focused solely on whether the dismissal was likely to be found automatically unfair due to protected disclosures.
Facts
The claimant, a Healthcare Assistant employed from April 2022 to June 2025, was suspended for most of his employment over disputes about his dreadlocks and compliance with the respondent's Dress Code Policy. He had previously brought discrimination claims which were dismissed in January 2025. Following his dismissal in June 2025 for alleged gross misconduct relating to refusal to comply with the policy, he claimed automatic unfair dismissal for whistleblowing and applied for interim relief. He relied on multiple alleged protected disclosures made between May 2022 and June 2025 concerning health and safety risks and breaches of legal obligations relating to the Dress Code Policy.
Decision
The tribunal refused the interim relief application, finding the claimant did not have a 'pretty good chance' of establishing he made protected disclosures. The tribunal examined each alleged disclosure and found none likely to meet the statutory criteria - they either did not convey sufficient information about the prescribed matters, or any belief held was not reasonably held (particularly given the earlier tribunal's findings), or the health and safety concerns were insufficiently clear or credible. Additionally, the respondent's evidence suggested dismissal was for misconduct, not whistleblowing.
Practical note
An interim relief application will fail where alleged protected disclosures are inextricably linked to matters already determined adversely to the claimant in previous proceedings, and where alleged safety concerns are insufficiently specific or credibly challenged, even if the claimant subjectively believes discrimination occurred.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 8000523/2025
- Decision date
- 25 August 2025
- Hearing type
- interim relief
- Hearing days
- —
- Classification
- procedural
Respondent
- Name
- NHS Lanarkshire
- Sector
- —
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- Healthcare Assistant
- Service
- 3 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No