Cases6023045/2024

Claimant v Chief Constable of Hampshire & Isle of Wight

30 June 2025Before Employment Judge CuthbertBristolin person

Outcome

Other

Individual claims

Whistleblowingnot determined

Interim relief application was refused. The tribunal found it likely that the claimant had made some protected disclosures, but she had not established a pretty good chance of proving that the disclosures were the principal reason for dismissal. Causation was vigorously contested and would require full hearing to determine. The reconsideration application was refused as there was no reasonable prospect of varying the original decision.

Direct Discrimination(race)not determined

The claimant made complaints primarily of race discrimination during her service. The substantive discrimination claims are to proceed to a final hearing and have not yet been determined.

Facts

The claimant was a probationary police constable who made complaints during her service, primarily of race discrimination. She was dismissed by the respondent, which claimed the reason was unsatisfactory attendance due to high and prolonged sickness absence. The claimant alleged she had made protected disclosures and that her dismissal was automatically unfair whistleblowing dismissal. She applied for interim relief, which was refused on 28 February 2025, and then sought reconsideration of that decision.

Decision

The tribunal refused the claimant's reconsideration application. The original interim relief decision found it likely she had made protected disclosures, but she had not established a pretty good chance of proving causation - that the disclosures were the principal reason for dismissal. The reconsideration application sought to re-argue matters already considered and did not demonstrate any reasonable prospect of varying the original decision.

Practical note

Interim relief applications require demonstrating a 'pretty good chance' of success at the substantive hearing; mere contestation of the employer's reason for dismissal, even with supporting detail, is insufficient to meet this high threshold on causation.

Legal authorities cited

Outasight VB Ltd v Brown UKEAT/0253/14Ebury Partners Ltd v Acton Davis [2023] EAT 40

Case details

Case number
6023045/2024
Decision date
30 June 2025
Hearing type
reconsideration
Hearing days
1
Classification
procedural

Respondent

Sector
public sector
Represented
Yes
Rep type
barrister

Employment details

Role
Probationary Police Constable

Claimant representation

Represented
No