Cases6007487/2025

Claimant v ADT Workplace Ltd

23 April 2025Before Employment Judge AndrewsLondon South

Outcome

Other

Individual claims

Automatic Unfair Dismissalnot determined

Interim relief application refused. Tribunal found significant factual disputes on both employment status and reason for dismissal. Respondent denied knowledge of protected disclosure to TPR and cited performance issues and disputed invoice as reasons for termination. Cannot determine at this stage whether it is 'likely' claim will succeed.

Whistleblowingnot determined

Claimant alleged he made protected disclosures to TPR on 28 February 2025 and to HMRC and HR on 3 March 2025 regarding pension contributions fraud. Respondent denied knowledge of TPR disclosure prior to termination. Issue requires full evidential hearing to determine.

Facts

Claimant engaged by respondent from 1 February 2023 to 3 March 2025. Claimant alleged respondent used sham contracts to avoid pension contributions and made protected disclosures to The Pensions Regulator on 28 February 2025, HMRC and HR on 3 March 2025. Respondent terminated agreement on 5 March 2025 citing performance issues and disputed invoice. Claimant disputed employment status and alleged dismissal was due to whistleblowing. Significant factual disputes between parties on both employment status and reason for termination.

Decision

Tribunal refused interim relief application. Found significant factual disputes on whether claimant was employee and reason for termination. Respondent denied knowledge of TPR disclosure and cited performance and disputed invoices. Issues require full evidential hearing and cannot be determined at interim stage to meet 'pretty good chance of success' threshold.

Practical note

Interim relief in whistleblowing cases requires more than coincidental timing and disputed facts—claimant must show a 'pretty good chance of success' which is significantly higher than balance of probabilities.

Legal authorities cited

Taplin v Shippam Ltd [1978] ICR 1068Ministry of Justice v Sarfaz [2011] IRLR 562Dandpat v The University of Bath & ors UKEAT/0408/09

Statutes

ERA 1996 s.103AERA 1996 s.128(1)ERA 1996 s.129(1)

Case details

Case number
6007487/2025
Decision date
23 April 2025
Hearing type
interim relief
Hearing days
1
Classification
contested

Respondent

Sector
other
Represented
Yes
Rep type
barrister

Employment details

Service
2 years

Claimant representation

Represented
No