Claimant v Dal-Sterling Group Ltd
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal dismissed the interim relief application under s.128 ERA 1996. The judge found the claim was not hopeless but did not have a 'pretty good chance' of success required for interim relief, due to doubts about the identity of the employer/recipient of disclosure, uncertainty whether disclosure was made to 'employer' under s.43C, and questions around causation given the claimant had been replaced before the disclosure and was dismissed for redundancy after being recalled from US.
Claim for detriment on grounds of public interest disclosure was raised but not determined at this interim relief hearing. The substantive merits were not tested; the tribunal only assessed whether there was a 'pretty good chance' of success for interim relief purposes.
Automatic unfair dismissal claim under s.103A ERA 1996 (dismissal for making protected disclosure) was not determined. The tribunal found threshold for interim relief not met due to concerns about causation - evidence suggested claimant was replaced in US role before disclosure, then made redundant due to lack of UK work, rather than because of the whistleblowing disclosure of 20 February 2024.
Facts
The claimant worked as a Senior Contracts Manager from September 2023. He was seconded to Alabama, US in October 2023 working on an ESTA visa waiver. On 20 February 2024 he raised a grievance/disclosure alleging he was being made to work illegally in the US in breach of ESTA rules, citing advice from a US immigration lawyer. He was recalled to the UK on 24 February. A redundancy process commenced on 29 February and he was dismissed on 13 April 2024. The respondent's position was that he had been replaced in the US role by an internal hire before the disclosure and there was no suitable alternative work in the UK.
Decision
The tribunal dismissed the application for interim relief. While the claim was not hopeless, it did not meet the high threshold of having a 'pretty good chance' of success. There were significant doubts about: (1) the identity of the employer and whether the disclosure recipient was the 'employer' under s.43C; (2) causation - evidence suggested the claimant was replaced before the disclosure and was dismissed for genuine redundancy rather than because of the whistleblowing. These issues required testing at a full merits hearing.
Practical note
Interim relief applications in whistleblowing cases face a high threshold; even where a disclosure appears protected, doubts about employer identity and alternative explanations for dismissal (such as redundancy with evidence of replacement before the disclosure) will defeat the application.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 1401192/2024
- Decision date
- 23 May 2024
- Hearing type
- interim relief
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- professional services
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- Senior Contracts Manager
- Service
- 7 months
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No