Case 1304264/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Sebastian Stoleriu v Sirane Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 1304264/2023
- Decision date
- 20 June 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Gilroy KC
- Venue
- Birmingham
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Sebastian Stoleriu
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Claimant applied for interim relief in connection with an automatic unfair dismissal claim based on alleged protected disclosures. For the application, he relied on one disclosure concerning a lack of disposable garments or overalls and said this related to health and safety and legal obligations under the PPE Regulations.
The Tribunal found it was likely that the Claimant would establish that he made the identified disclosure. However, at the interim stage it was not satisfied that he was likely to establish that he believed the disclosure tended to show a breach of a health and safety legal obligation or endangerment to health and safety, or that any such belief was reasonable, given the evidence that the garments were supplied for product quality and contamination control reasons.
The Tribunal concluded that the Claimant had not shown a pretty good chance of succeeding in the substantive automatic unfair dismissal claim. The application for interim relief was therefore dismissed, with the merits of the substantive claim left for the main hearing.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | The judgment dismissed only the Claimant's application for interim relief in respect of automatic unfair dismissal contrary to s.103A ERA 1996. The substantive claim was not finally determined. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- s.103A ERA 1996
- Personal Protective Equipment at Work Regulations 1992
- pretty good chance
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.