Claimant v Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal was not satisfied there was a 'pretty good chance of success' for interim relief purposes. The documentary evidence supported the respondent's contention that the claimant was employed on a fixed-term contract covering maternity leave which ended on 31 January 2025 as contractually agreed. While protected disclosures may have been made, the tribunal was not persuaded on the limited evidence that whistleblowing was the principal reason for dismissal rather than the ending of the fixed-term contract.
Claim mentioned in the ET1 but not determined at this interim relief hearing, which concerned only the automatic unfair dismissal/whistleblowing claim.
Claim mentioned in the ET1 but not determined at this interim relief hearing. The claimant has Multiple Sclerosis and takes 10 different medications.
Claim mentioned in the ET1 but not determined at this interim relief hearing.
Claim mentioned in the ET1 but not determined at this interim relief hearing.
Claim mentioned in the ET1 but not determined at this interim relief hearing.
Facts
Dr Abdulwhab was employed as a Senior LED in Asthma Research on a fixed-term contract from 5 August 2024 to 31 January 2025 as maternity cover. He alleged he made protected disclosures about failures in vetting when recruiting staff. The respondent ended his contract on the agreed date as the person on maternity leave was returning and there was only funding for one doctor in the post. Access to email, WhatsApp groups and building card access was removed in the final weeks of employment. The claimant brought claims including automatic unfair dismissal for whistleblowing, race and disability discrimination, and various pay claims.
Decision
The tribunal refused the application for interim relief. The documentary evidence supported that the claimant was employed on a genuine fixed-term contract ending on 31 January 2025. The tribunal was not satisfied there was a 'pretty good chance' that whistleblowing was the principal reason for dismissal rather than the lawful expiry of the fixed-term contract. The claim may be arguable at a full merits hearing but did not meet the high threshold required for interim relief.
Practical note
Applications for interim relief in whistleblowing dismissals face a high threshold and will fail where clear contractual documentation supports an alternative explanation for dismissal, such as the genuine expiry of a fixed-term contract.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 6004074/2025
- Decision date
- 28 February 2025
- Hearing type
- interim
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- healthcare
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- Senior LED in Asthma Research
- Service
- 6 months
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No