- NO ATTENDANCE FOR THE v Respondent — 2024

This was an interim relief hearing only. The claimant did not attend, and the tribunal proceeded on the written material. The judge recorded that the claimant said he had been dismissed for raising health and safety concerns and making public interest disclosures, while the respondent said the dismissal was for gross misconduct, including aggressive and threatening behaviour, swearing at a driver, using the OPT as a barrier, and driving it into a barrier.

Applying the section 128 ERA 1996 test, the tribunal asked whether it was likely that the final tribunal would find that the reason or principal reason for dismissal fell within section 100 and/or section 103A. The judge referred to the meaning of "likely" as requiring a good chance, citing Ministry of Justice v Sarfraz. He held that there was a genuine issue as to whether the claimant could bring himself within section 100 or section 103A, and a genuine issue as to the real reason for dismissal.

The tribunal was not satisfied, on the documentary material before it, that the claimant had shown the higher threshold required for interim relief. It noted that the respondent's explanation for dismissal was supported by documentary evidence and that it could not be held at that stage to be likely that the final tribunal would reject that explanation. The application for interim relief was therefore dismissed. The judge added that the decision did not mean the claimant would fail at final hearing, only that the threshold for interim relief had not been met.