Mr B Yates v Solo Life Opportunities (trading as Social Life Opportunities) — 2021

This was a hearing on the claimant’s application for interim relief under section 128 ERA 1996. The claimant alleged that he had made nine protected disclosures between April and August 2020, mainly to Karon Swinburn, with some matters also said to have been raised with the Board of Trustees and the CQC. The tribunal summarised the surrounding events, including the claimant’s grievance on 20 November 2020, the disciplinary correspondence in late November and early December 2020, and his dismissal on 14 December 2020 with one month’s pay in lieu of notice.

Applying the authorities it cited, including Taplin, Chacko, Wollenburg, Sarfraz, Kuzel, Babula and Kilraine, the tribunal held on a summary basis that the claimant was likely to show that at least one protected disclosure had been made. It also found that he had a pretty good chance of establishing the subjective belief element, that the belief was reasonable, and that the disclosures were made in the public interest. The judge took into account that the claimant worked in a compliance-related role for a regulated charity, so the matters he reported were of a type that could engage regulatory compliance and public interest concerns.

The application nevertheless failed on causation. The tribunal was not satisfied that the claimant had shown a significantly higher than balance-of-probabilities likelihood that the principal reason for dismissal was that he had made protected disclosures. The judge considered the timing of events in November and December 2020, the grievance correspondence, the complaint received via Solihull MBC, and the disciplinary allegations relied on by the respondent, and concluded that on the material then available the dismissal was not likely to be found to have been for the sole or principal reason of protected disclosure. Interim relief was therefore refused, and the tribunal directed that the case proceed to case management for the underlying claim.