Case 1402192/2022 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Mr M Smith, Solicitor — 2022
- Case reference
- 1402192/2022
- Decision date
- 1 August 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Roper
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr Marlan Higgins applied for interim relief after his dismissal by NHS Blood and Transplant on 5 July 2022. The hearing was conducted remotely on the papers on 28 July 2022. The tribunal noted that, for an interim relief application, it was not required to make findings of fact and had to carry out an expeditious summary assessment of the material before it.
On the trade union limb, the claimant relied on section 152(1)(b) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, saying he had been dismissed for taking part in trade union activities. The tribunal held that section 161(3) required a certificate in writing signed by an authorised union official, and the claimant accepted that he had not provided one. The tribunal therefore said it had no jurisdiction to entertain that part of the application and dismissed it for that reason.
On the whistleblowing limb, the claimant said he had made protected public interest disclosures in May 2021 and November 2021 about alleged fabrication of evidence and statements in relation to complaints involving Rachel May and Amanda Dee. The respondent relied on the investigation reports, the management statement of case, the disciplinary minutes and the dismissal letter, which recorded findings of bullying, refusal to follow management instructions, covert recordings, and breaches of data protection and management instructions. The tribunal accepted the respondent's submission that the dismissal appeared to be for serious misconduct and gross misconduct.
The tribunal said the claimant had not sufficiently explained how the alleged disclosures met the statutory requirements of section 43B, why they were made in the public interest, or why any reasonable belief as to those matters was held. It was not satisfied that he had shown a high degree of likelihood, or a pretty good chance, of establishing that the disclosures were the sole or principal reason for dismissal. Interim relief was therefore dismissed under section 128 of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Trade union | Interim relief limb under section 152(1)(b) TULRCA 1992. The tribunal dismissed this aspect because the claimant had not provided the written certificate required by section 161(3), so it had no jurisdiction to entertain the application. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | Interim relief limb based on alleged protected disclosures in May 2021 and November 2021. The tribunal dismissed the application because the claimant did not show a high degree of likelihood or a pretty good chance of proving that the disclosures were the principal reason for dismissal. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
13 references- section 128 ERA 1996 interim relief
- section 161(3) TULRCA 1992 certificate requirement
- section 43A ERA 1996 protected disclosure
- section 43B ERA 1996 qualifying disclosure
- section 43C ERA 1996 protected disclosure
- section 98(4) ERA 1996
- expeditious summary assessment
- pretty good chance of success
- London City Airport Ltd v Chacko
- Ryb v Nomura International plc
- Taplin v C Shippam Ltd
- Dandpat v University of Bath
- Ministry of Justice v Sarfraz
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.