Claimant v LNRS Data Services Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
This was an interim relief application only. The tribunal refused interim relief, finding the claimant did not have a 'pretty good chance' of showing redundancy was a sham or that whistleblowing was the reason for dismissal. The substantive unfair dismissal claim will proceed to full hearing.
The tribunal found the claimant likely made at least one protected disclosure regarding GDPR compliance in June 2024, but did not have a pretty good chance of showing this was the reason for dismissal. The claim will be determined at full hearing.
Application refused. The tribunal found the claimant failed to show a 'pretty good chance' that redundancy was a sham, and even if he made protected disclosures, failed to show this was the reason for dismissal occurring 6-9 months later.
Facts
The claimant, a Senior UX Designer employed from April 2022 to April 2025, raised GDPR concerns in June 2024 about processing of employee data in the Philippines. He submitted a formal grievance and wrote to the CEO in September 2024 making what he claimed were protected disclosures. In January 2025, his role was identified as at risk in a restructuring exercise. After consultation, he was dismissed for redundancy on 30 April 2025. He applied for interim relief claiming the redundancy was a sham to punish him for whistleblowing.
Decision
The tribunal refused the interim relief application. While finding the claimant likely made at least one protected disclosure regarding GDPR compliance, the tribunal held he did not have a 'pretty good chance' of showing the redundancy was a sham or that the protected disclosure was the reason for dismissal occurring 6-9 months later. The decision-makers had limited knowledge of the disclosures and there was credible business rationale for the redundancy.
Practical note
Interim relief applications in redundancy cases face a very high bar: the claimant must show the redundancy is entirely fabricated or a sham, and even genuine protected disclosures are insufficient if there is credible business rationale and limited evidence linking the disclosure to the dismissal decision months later.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 6013964/2025
- Decision date
- 23 June 2025
- Hearing type
- interim
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- technology
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- Senior Visual or UX Designer
- Service
- 3 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No