Claimant v Headlands Venture Ltd
Outcome
Individual claims
Claimant's own position was that he was dismissed because of his mental health breakdown and the respondent's desire to avoid making reasonable adjustments, not because of any protected disclosures. The tribunal found it not likely that protected disclosures were the reason or principal reason for dismissal.
This is an interim relief application only. The substantive unfair dismissal claim was not determined at this hearing and remains to be heard at a full merits hearing.
This claim was listed in the claim form but was not addressed in this interim relief hearing. It remains to be determined at the full merits hearing.
This claim was listed in the claim form but was not addressed in this interim relief hearing. It remains to be determined at the full merits hearing.
This claim was listed in the claim form but was not addressed in this interim relief hearing. It remains to be determined at the full merits hearing.
Protected disclosure detriment claim was listed in the claim form but was not addressed in this interim relief hearing. It remains to be determined at the full merits hearing.
This claim was listed in the claim form but was not addressed in this interim relief hearing. It remains to be determined at the full merits hearing.
This claim was listed in the claim form but was not addressed in this interim relief hearing. It remains to be determined at the full merits hearing.
Facts
The claimant worked as a kitchen porter in a café from May 2022 until around November or December 2024. He left a shift early on 2 November 2024, either quitting or citing mental health concerns. He returned to work on 4 November but did not work thereafter. On 6 December 2024 the respondent sent him his final payslip and advised a P45 would follow. The claimant brought claims including automatic unfair dismissal for whistleblowing and applied for interim relief. The respondent contended the claimant was a casual worker who resigned or abandoned his employment.
Decision
The tribunal dismissed the claimant's application for interim relief. The tribunal found it was not likely the claimant would succeed at final hearing in establishing he made protected disclosures in the public interest, or that any disclosures were the reason for dismissal. The claimant's own case was that he was dismissed because of his mental health breakdown and to avoid making reasonable adjustments, not because of any disclosures.
Practical note
An interim relief application will fail where the claimant's own evidence shows the reason for dismissal was something other than the alleged protected disclosure, even if other elements of the whistleblowing claim may have merit.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 2312427/2024
- Decision date
- 23 January 2025
- Hearing type
- interim
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- hospitality
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- Kitchen Porter
- Service
- 3 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- lay rep