Claimant v Royal College of Psychiatrists

The tribunal found the claimant had no pretty good chance of success at final hearing. First, she was not likely to succeed in showing she was an employee rather than agency worker. Second, even if she were an employee, the disclosures did not meet the statutory test: it was unreasonable to believe the respondent had breached or was likely to breach its duty to make reasonable adjustments only 3-4 working days after being informed of disability and only 1 day after a health assessment meeting. Third, the claimant did not reasonably believe the disclosures were in the public interest. Fourth, even if the disclosures were protected, the claimant had no pretty good chance of showing they were the sole or principal reason for dismissal given her refusal to consent to the disability assessment and the short-term nature of the engagement.

The tribunal found the three disclosures relied upon (emails dated 22 and 24 January 2025) were not likely to be protected disclosures. The claimant could not show a reasonable belief that the respondent's request for consent to a disability assessment or failure to provide equipment within 3-4 days tended to show breach of legal obligation or endangerment to health. The tribunal also found the claimant unlikely to show reasonable belief the disclosures were in the public interest, as they related to her private rights only.