Mr D Farrell v Shaw Trust Limited (The) and 2 others — 2020

The tribunal considered only the claimant's application for interim relief pending his claim that he had been automatically unfairly dismissed for making a protected disclosure. The judge accepted, on a provisional basis, that the claimant had a pretty good chance of establishing at a full hearing that his 18 March 2020 email amounted to a protected disclosure within section 43B ERA 1996 and that he reasonably believed it was in the public interest.

The application nevertheless failed on causation. The tribunal held that the real issue was whether it was likely that the protected disclosure was the reason or principal reason for dismissal. The judge accepted that the claimant's November 2020 grievance was the catalyst for the sequence of events that led to the respondent discovering his previous employment and commencing disciplinary action, but found that this did not make it likely that the protected disclosure itself was the reason for dismissal.

The tribunal found that the claimant's case on causation was circumstantial and speculative at this stage, and that there was no obvious tangible evidence that the dismissal decision makers had been aware of, influenced by, or manipulated because of the protected disclosure. By contrast, the available material appeared to show that the respondent had a genuine and reasonable belief that the claimant had omitted or provided false information in his application for employment. On that basis, the tribunal was not satisfied that the claimant's section 103A claim was likely to succeed, and interim relief was refused.