Cases2404873/2024

Claimant v Watson Ramsbottom Ltd

16 October 2024Before Employment Judge SlaterManchesterin person

Outcome

Other

Individual claims

Whistleblowingnot determined

The tribunal assessed the interim relief application and concluded the claimant had a pretty good chance of establishing she made protected disclosures regarding cyberstalking and regulatory breaches. However, the tribunal could not conclude on summary assessment that she had a pretty good chance of proving constructive dismissal or that the reason for any breach of contract was her protected disclosures. The claim remains to be determined at full hearing.

Constructive Dismissalnot determined

The claimant alleged the respondent failed to provide a safe working environment, failed to adequately investigate her grievance, and failed to implement reasonable adjustments. The tribunal concluded it could not assess on summary basis whether these matters constituted a fundamental breach of contract or whether she resigned in response to them, as evidence would need to be heard. The claim remains to be determined at full hearing.

Facts

The claimant, a solicitor employed since February 2017, was on sick leave from September 2022. She alleged cyberstalking by directors and employees, raised grievances from 2021, and submitted a formal grievance in December 2022 requesting external investigation. An internal investigation was completed in February 2023. She presented a tribunal claim in February 2023 and resigned in September 2024, citing failure to provide a safe working environment and concealment of wrongdoing. She applied for interim relief within 7 days.

Decision

The tribunal refused the application for interim relief. While the tribunal concluded the claimant had a pretty good chance of establishing she made protected disclosures to the respondent and SRA regarding cyberstalking and regulatory breaches, it could not conclude on summary assessment that she had a pretty good chance of proving constructive dismissal or that the reason for any breach was her protected disclosures. Evidence would need to be heard at a full hearing to determine these issues.

Practical note

Interim relief applications require a 'pretty good chance of success' on all essential elements of the claim; even where protected disclosures are likely to be established, the application will fail if constructive dismissal and causation cannot be assessed as likely to succeed on a summary basis without hearing full evidence.

Legal authorities cited

Taplin v C Shippam Ltd [1978] ICR 1068Dobbie v Paula Felton t/a Felton Solicitors UKEAT/0130/20/00MOJ v Sarfraz [2011] IRLR 562Wollenberg v Global Gaming Ventures (Leeds) Ltd UKEAT/0053/18

Statutes

ERA 1996 s.128ERA 1996 s.43CERA 1996 s.43BERA 1996 s.103AEquality Act 2010Protection from Harassment Act 1997ERA 1996 s.129

Case details

Case number
2404873/2024
Decision date
16 October 2024
Hearing type
interim relief
Hearing days
1
Classification
procedural

Respondent

Sector
legal services
Represented
Yes
Rep type
barrister

Employment details

Role
Solicitor
Service
8 years

Claimant representation

Represented
No