Claimant v Ashford Borough Council
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found it was not likely the claimant would establish employee status as he was engaged via an umbrella company and agency with no direct contractual relationship with the respondent. There was no evidence of ambiguity suggesting the need to look behind the contractual framework. Without employee status, the claim for automatically unfair dismissal could not succeed.
The tribunal concluded it was not likely the claimant would establish he made protected disclosures. The claim form did not specify what information was disclosed to the line manager. The email to Mr Olugbodi on 3 July 2025 referred to 'ambiguity around compliance' but did not unambiguously tend to show prescribed categories of wrongdoing such as health and safety breaches or legal obligation failures. The tribunal could not say it was likely this constituted a protected disclosure.
Even if employee status and protected disclosure were established, the tribunal found it not likely that the sole or principal reason for dismissal was the disclosures. Mr Ingram who sent the alleged threatening text messages was not the dismissing officer. There was no evidence Mr Olugbodi (the dismissing officer) was aware of the text exchange or specific disclosures to Mr Ingram. There were significant factual disputes about performance issues that would need to be resolved at full hearing.
Facts
The claimant was engaged as a Compliance Specialist by Ashford Borough Council on 5 June 2025 through an umbrella company (Arch Finance) and agency (Service Care Solutions). After approximately one month, he raised concerns about allegedly falsified compliance data and inaccurate reporting to the council's scrutiny committee. He sent an email to Mr Olugbodi on 3 July 2025 outlining issues with compliance record-keeping. On 4 July 2025, his engagement was terminated by Mr Olugbodi, allegedly for performance reasons, though the claimant claimed he was told he was 'over delivering'. The claimant brought claims for automatically unfair dismissal for making protected disclosures and applied for interim relief.
Decision
The tribunal dismissed the application for interim relief. The judge found it was not likely the claimant would succeed in establishing he was an employee as he was engaged via a third-party umbrella company with no direct contractual relationship with the respondent. Even if employee status were established, it was not likely he would prove he made protected disclosures as his communications did not unambiguously tend to show prescribed categories of wrongdoing. Finally, it was not likely the tribunal would find the reason for dismissal was whistleblowing, as the dismissing officer appeared unaware of the alleged disclosures.
Practical note
Interim relief applications in whistleblowing cases require a high threshold of likely success on all elements including employment status, and claimants engaged through umbrella companies will struggle to establish the necessary direct employment relationship with the end user.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 6025509/2025
- Decision date
- 30 July 2025
- Hearing type
- interim relief
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- public sector
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- Compliance Specialist
- Service
- 1 months
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No