Cases6012296/2024

Claimant v Tata Technologies EU Ltd

30 June 2025Before Employment Judge T PerryBirminghamin person

Outcome

Claimant fails

Individual claims

Whistleblowingfailed

The tribunal refused the application for interim relief, finding that the claimant did not meet the high threshold of being 'likely' to succeed in showing his dismissal was caused by a protected disclosure. The dismissing officer provided a rationale based on a WhatsApp message breach of confidentiality rules, and the judge found the claimant's 'but for' causation argument insufficient, noting the claimant would face difficulties showing both qualifying disclosure and causal link.

Facts

The claimant, a senior manager earning £78,000 plus benefits, was dismissed following a disciplinary investigation concerning a WhatsApp message breach of confidentiality. The claimant had previously made what he alleged was a protected disclosure and applied for interim relief, arguing he would not have been dismissed 'but for' the whistleblowing. The respondent's dismissing officer cited breaches of confidentiality rules and lack of insight into information handling as critical failings for someone in a senior role.

Decision

Employment Judge Perry refused the application for interim relief. The judge found that the claimant faced a difficult task meeting the high 'likely to succeed' threshold, noting the dismissing officer had provided a clear rationale for dismissal based on the WhatsApp breach. The judge considered the claimant's prospects so limited that a deposit order might ordinarily be considered, though would be refused given the case would only take 3 days to try.

Practical note

Interim relief applications in whistleblowing cases require a very high threshold of likelihood of success ('nearer to certainty than mere probability'), and a 'but for' causation argument alone is insufficient without evidence showing the protected disclosure was the actual reason for dismissal.

Legal authorities cited

Raja v Secretary of State for Justice EAT/0364/09Robinson v Sheikh Halid Bin Saqr Al Qasimi (CA) 2021 ICR 1533Taplin v C Shippam Limited [1978] ICR 1068Ministry of Justice v Sarfraz [2011] IRLR 562

Statutes

ERA 1996 s.129ERA 1996 s.103A

Case details

Case number
6012296/2024
Decision date
30 June 2025
Hearing type
interim relief
Hearing days
1
Classification
contested

Respondent

Sector
technology
Represented
Yes
Rep type
lay rep

Employment details

Role
senior manager
Salary band
£60,000–£80,000

Claimant representation

Represented
No