Claimant v University of East London
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal refused the interim relief application, finding the claimant did not have a 'pretty good chance' of succeeding. The tribunal found it was not clear the September 2024 disclosure met the tests for a protected disclosure under s.43B ERA, and crucially, there was insufficient evidence of a causal connection between any alleged disclosure and the dismissal, given the restructure had been planned before any disclosure was made.
This claim was mentioned as part of the proceedings but was not the subject of the interim relief application and therefore was not determined at this hearing.
This claim was mentioned as part of the proceedings but was not the subject of the interim relief application and therefore was not determined at this hearing.
Facts
The claimant was employed as a part-time duty manager at the University's gym from August 2012 to April 2025. In 2024, the respondent undertook a restructure, planning beginning in August 2023 and staff being notified by July 2024. The claimant made a lengthy alleged protected disclosure in September 2024 raising health and safety and other concerns. She did not apply for any of the new roles in the restructure and requested redeployment. She was dismissed by reason of redundancy on 16 April 2025, along with another colleague in the same role.
Decision
The tribunal refused the interim relief application. The judge found the claimant did not have a 'pretty good chance' of succeeding in showing her dismissal was because of the alleged protected disclosure. The tribunal could not conclude on summary assessment that the lengthy September 2024 document met the tests for a protected disclosure, and more importantly, found insufficient evidence of causal connection between any disclosure and dismissal, given the restructure had been planned well before any alleged disclosure.
Practical note
Interim relief applications in whistleblowing cases require clear evidence of causation between the protected disclosure and dismissal; where a restructure predates any alleged disclosure, establishing the necessary causal link presents significant difficulties.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 6014376/2025
- Decision date
- 18 August 2025
- Hearing type
- interim relief
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- education
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- Duty Manager on reception at the gym
- Service
- 13 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No