Claimant v Force Contracting Services Ltd
Outcome
Individual claims
Interim relief application refused. Tribunal found claimant had 'pretty good chance' of establishing five separate protected disclosures, but did not have a pretty good chance of establishing causation — that the disclosures were the reason or principal reason for dismissal. Investigation began 12 February 2025, before most disclosures made, and disciplinary process already underway before later disclosures.
Claimant alleged five protected disclosures: (1) concerns about GT's threatening behaviour endangering health/safety; (2) repeated concerns at meeting; (3) allegations of fraud via false compensation events; (4) further fraud allegations without detail; (5) specific fraud allegations by email. Tribunal found first three likely to be protected disclosures but causation not established. Disclosure 4 was allegation not information. Disclosure 5 not yet part of claim.
Facts
Claimant was a quantity surveyor dismissed following an altercation on 11 February 2025 with colleague GT, who allegedly used threatening behaviour and racially abusive language. Claimant was dismissed; GT received a warning and probation extension. Following the incident, claimant raised grievances about feeling unsafe due to GT's behaviour and made allegations of fraudulent activity by the company through false compensation events and bribery. Respondent commenced investigation on 12 February 2025, before most of the alleged disclosures were made.
Decision
Tribunal refused interim relief application. While the judge found claimant had a 'pretty good chance' of establishing that some communications were protected disclosures (particularly concerns about GT's behaviour endangering health and safety, and allegations of fraud), the claimant did not have a pretty good chance of proving causation — that the disclosures were the reason or principal reason for dismissal, as the investigation and disciplinary process had commenced before most disclosures were made.
Practical note
Interim relief applications fail on causation where investigation and disciplinary process commenced before protected disclosures were made, even where disclosures themselves meet the statutory test.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 6010533/2025
- Decision date
- 12 April 2025
- Hearing type
- interim
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- construction
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- solicitor
Employment details
- Role
- quantity surveyor
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No