Claimant v R3Vamp Ltd
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal refused the application for interim relief under s.103A ERA 1996 (whistleblowing dismissal). The claimant failed to demonstrate a 'pretty good chance' of success on establishing protected disclosures because she did not provide sufficient detail about what information was disclosed or what wrongdoing was alleged. There was also insufficient clarity on the public interest element and on whether disclosures were made to the employer or a prescribed person. Further, the respondent provided a plausible alternative reason for dismissal (non-attendance on first two days and failure to contact them), which undermined causation.
Interim relief application under s.128-129 ERA 1996 refused. The tribunal found the claimant did not have a 'pretty good chance' of success on the whistleblowing unfair dismissal claim. The claimant failed to meet the high threshold required for interim relief on both the existence of protected disclosures and on causation between any disclosure and dismissal.
Facts
The claimant was an agency worker assigned by the respondent recruitment company to London Business School as an AP Analyst from 20 January 2025. She was withdrawn from the assignment on 21 January 2025. She claimed she was dismissed for making whistleblowing disclosures to the ICO, EHRC, HSE and DWP on 18-19 January 2025 and by forwarding an email on 20 January 2025 requesting reasonable adjustments. The respondent said the assignment was terminated because she did not attend work on the first or second days and could not be contacted. The hearing was postponed twice at the claimant's request before proceeding on 7 May 2025.
Decision
The tribunal refused the application for interim relief. The claimant failed to demonstrate a 'pretty good chance' of establishing protected disclosures because she did not provide sufficient detail about what information was disclosed or what wrongdoing was alleged. The public interest element was also insufficiently established. Additionally, the respondent provided a plausible alternative reason for dismissal (non-attendance and failure to contact) which undermined the causation element required for whistleblowing dismissal.
Practical note
Interim relief applications in whistleblowing cases require claimants to provide detailed particulars of the alleged disclosures, including the specific information disclosed and the wrongdoing alleged, not just general references to breached legislation.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 6002655/2025
- Decision date
- 9 May 2025
- Hearing type
- interim
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Name
- R3Vamp Ltd
- Sector
- professional services
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- AP Analyst
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No