Claimant v Taylor Davenport Resourcing Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
Interim relief application only. Full merits hearing yet to take place.
The tribunal was not persuaded the claimant made protected disclosures as alleged. The claimant claimed 18 oral disclosures over 18 months but provided no contemporaneous written evidence. The tribunal found the claimant's narrative unconvincing, particularly her return to an allegedly harassing employer and the belated escalation only when facing redundancy. The tribunal also found the respondent's explanation that commission was mistakenly entered as expenses credible, and noted the claimant never raised concerns with the shared accountancy firm. The tribunal concluded the claimant did not have a 'pretty good chance' of establishing the dismissal was for whistleblowing.
The tribunal rejected the interim relief application, finding the claimant unlikely to establish she made qualifying protected disclosures. The alleged disclosures were oral, lacked contemporaneous corroboration, and were only raised in writing after redundancy consultation began. The tribunal found the respondent's account that payroll errors were corrected immediately upon discovery more credible than the claimant's allegation of deliberate tax evasion.
Full merits hearing yet to take place. Interim relief not available for disability discrimination claims.
Full merits hearing yet to take place. Interim relief not available for discrimination claims.
Full merits hearing yet to take place. The tribunal noted harassment and direct discrimination are mutually exclusive claims.
Full merits hearing yet to take place. Interim relief not available for reasonable adjustments claims.
Facts
The claimant worked as Director of Recruitment for a public sector recruitment agency from July 2020 to September 2024. She claimed she made 18 protected disclosures between January 2023 and September 2024 alleging the respondent fraudulently processed her commission as expenses to reduce tax. The respondent denied this, stating commission was entered incorrectly by administrative error, which was corrected and tax paid when discovered. The claimant was made redundant in September 2024 due to lack of new clients and placements in her region since 2022. She applied for interim relief claiming automatic unfair dismissal for whistleblowing.
Decision
The tribunal refused the interim relief application. The judge was not persuaded the claimant made protected disclosures, noting all but one were allegedly oral with no contemporaneous corroboration, the claimant never raised concerns with their shared accountant, and only raised a written grievance after being notified of redundancy. The tribunal found the respondent's explanation of administrative error credible and the claimant's narrative unconvincing, falling well below the 'pretty good chance of success' threshold required for interim relief.
Practical note
Interim relief applications in whistleblowing cases require strong contemporaneous evidence of protected disclosures; purely oral allegations made over many months without written corroboration or escalation, raised only when facing redundancy, will not meet the high threshold of a 'pretty good chance of success'.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 2406768/2024
- Decision date
- 24 January 2025
- Hearing type
- interim relief
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- professional services
- Represented
- No
Employment details
- Role
- Director of Recruitment
- Service
- 4 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No