Claimant v Aniara Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found that the claimant's application for interim relief under s128(1) ERA 1996 was dismissed because it was not likely that the tribunal would find that the reason or principal reason for dismissal was either of the two claimed protected disclosures. While disclosure 1 (pest control issues) was likely to be found a protected disclosure, the respondent's handling of it and the existence of genuine capability concerns (mobility issues, shift time requirements, and occupational health advice) meant it was not likely that disclosure 1 was the reason or principal reason for dismissal. Disclosure 2 (slippery stairs) was not likely to be found a protected disclosure as the claimant did not reasonably believe it was made in the public interest—it was a personal matter affecting only staff with mobility issues, not the public.
Facts
The claimant worked as a Security Operations Team Leader at the ABBA Voyage Arena from September 2024 until his dismissal on 11 December 2024 on capability grounds. He had sustained a knee injury in October 2024 requiring surgery and affecting his mobility for an estimated 12 months. He made two claimed protected disclosures: disclosure 1 on 22 November 2024 about pest control issues (rats and cockroaches in staff areas), and disclosure 2 on 5 December 2024 about dangerously slippery stairs to the control room. He was dismissed shortly after, on 11 December 2024, with the stated reasons being his insistence on a 5:30pm start time that could not be accommodated, his limited mobility affecting his ability to attend emergencies, and the long-term nature of his knee injury.
Decision
The tribunal dismissed the claimant's application for interim relief. While disclosure 1 was likely to be found a protected disclosure (as pest issues could affect the public at this high-profile venue), disclosure 2 was not, as it concerned only a personal issue affecting staff with mobility problems, not the public interest. Crucially, even if disclosure 1 was protected, the respondent's transparent handling of the pest issue, combined with genuine capability concerns arising from occupational health advice and the claimant's own disclosure of long-term mobility restrictions, meant it was not likely that disclosure 1 was the reason or principal reason for dismissal.
Practical note
An interim relief application requires a 'pretty good chance' of success and will fail where genuine capability concerns contemporaneous with a protected disclosure provide an alternative explanation for dismissal, even if the disclosure itself qualifies for protection.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 6022337/2024
- Decision date
- 7 May 2025
- Hearing type
- interim relief
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Name
- Aniara Limited
- Sector
- hospitality
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- Security Operations Team Leader
- Service
- 3 months
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No