in person v Mrs S Younis, consultant — 2020

Mr R Patel applied for interim relief on 10 December 2019, saying he had been dismissed by letter dated 9 December 2019, received on 12 December 2019. The hearing took place on 7 January 2020 before Employment Judge Broughton. The tribunal explained that interim relief was only available against the employer, so any such applications against other respondents were refused.

The claimant said that he had made a number of protected disclosures between 30 October and 10 December 2019, including complaints about a nappy incident near a customer and baby, a blocked fire exit, a photograph of a shoplifter, a request for a fleece, an alleged sale of alcohol to a minor, and a subject access request issue. The judge found it difficult to identify the claims and said the claimant was unclear about dates, times, people involved, and the evidence supporting each alleged disclosure.

The tribunal considered whether those matters satisfied the statutory tests in s.43B and ss.43C to 43H ERA 1996 and whether the respondent knew of the disclosures before deciding to dismiss. It noted that some matters appeared personal rather than public in nature, that some had already been dealt with, and that several external reports appeared to have been made only after the claimant had stopped being given work. The tribunal accepted the respondent's evidence that the decision not to offer further work and to dismiss had been taken on 9 December 2019, with the stated reason being failure to follow instructions and client complaints about conduct.

On that basis, the tribunal could not say that the claimant's automatic unfair dismissal claim was likely to succeed, so the application for interim relief failed. The judgment also records warnings to the claimant about his conduct during the hearing and about the risk of strike out or costs sanctions if similar behaviour continued.