Jennifer Andrews v Princethorpe Foundation and 7 others — 2022

The claimant applied for interim relief after alleging that her dismissal was because she had made protected disclosures. The tribunal approached the application under ss.128-129 ERA 1996 and the authorities on the meaning of “likely”, including Bombardier Aerospace v McConnell, Taplin, and Ministry of Justice v Sarfraz. It reiterated that the exercise was a summary assessment based on the material then available, not a final determination of the underlying claim.

The claimant relied on a series of disclosures said to have been made between January and April 2022, including complaints about disability-related treatment, an anti-trans questionnaire, safeguarding concerns, and later complaints about grading and exam-board compliance. The tribunal accepted that some of the alleged communications were at least arguable as disclosures of information, and that some might arguably tend to show breaches of legal obligation under the Equality Act or KCSIE. However, it could not say on the papers that the claimant had a pretty good chance of proving that protected disclosures were made, including the requirements of reasonable belief and public interest.

Causation was the decisive issue. The tribunal noted that the dismissal decision was taken by Margaret Jolley after a disciplinary process in April and May 2022, and that the dismissal letter of 24 May 2022 identified misconduct as the reason. Ms Jolley had considered and rejected the claimant’s case that the disciplinary process was a retaliation or sham, and the tribunal found that, on the documents, she appeared to have approached the matter diligently and in good faith. It was not satisfied that the claimant was likely to prove that the real reason for dismissal was the making of protected disclosures, so the interim relief application failed.