In person For the v Mr Clark’s application for interim relief fails; and and 3 others — 2019

Mr Clark applied for interim relief on the basis that he had made protected disclosures to Wiltshire CCG and the NHSE during an unannounced inspection of the Glenside Neuro Rehab Hospital on 2 November 2018 and that those disclosures were at least part of the reason for his dismissal. He accepted that the disclosures were not the sole reason or the principal reason, and the tribunal was not satisfied that he was 'likely', within ERA 1996 s.129(1), to establish dismissal for making protected disclosures. In reaching that view, the tribunal applied the Taplin 'pretty good chance of success' test and refused interim relief.

Mr Coxwell also sought interim relief, alleging that his dismissal was because of protected disclosures made to Wiltshire CCG, the NHSE and Wiltshire Council at meetings on 12 and 17 October 2018 and during the unannounced inspection. The tribunal considered his causation case, including the timing of the dismissal, the absence of earlier performance complaints and the recent bonus, but also the respondent's evidence that the relationship had broken down and that Dr Florschutz was not told of the disclosures before dismissal. It found that the knowledge issue created a real difficulty and was not persuaded that Mr Coxwell was likely to succeed under the Taplin test, so his application also failed. The only monetary figure mentioned in the decision was the possible statutory fine of up to £1,000 for non-compliance with disclosure orders in the directions, not an award made to either claimant.