Mr Y Baksh (Consultant) v Mr J Gilbert (consultant) — 2020

The claimant applied for interim relief under ss128-129 Employment Rights Act 1996 after his summary dismissal by letter dated 25 February 2020, received on 27 February 2020, saying the principal reason was a protected disclosure made on 7 May 2019. The respondent accepted, for the purposes of the application, that the claimant had made a protected disclosure. The tribunal approached the application as one under the Taplin line of authority, asking whether it was likely, in the sense of a "pretty good chance", that a future tribunal would find the dismissal was because of the protected disclosure, and it also referred to Royal Mail Group v Jhuti.

The tribunal noted the earlier detriment claim, in which the parties agreed that the claimant had made a protected disclosure and had been subjected to detriments by being suspended on 7 May 2019 and referred to the Local Authority Designated Officer. It decided to hear the interim relief application rather than adjourn for written reasons in that earlier case, noting the statutory requirement to deal with interim relief as soon as practicable and the documentary material already before it.

On the evidence before it, the tribunal recorded that Ms Carolann Dodds suspended the claimant on 7 May 2019 after the disclosure, and later changed the stated reason to an incident on 19 April 2019 involving a child in the respondent's care. The respondent referred the matter to the LADO on 8 May 2019, commissioned an independent investigation by Patrick Kiernon, and then a disciplinary report by Rachel Laing. Ms Laing upheld four allegations of gross misconduct and the respondent summarily dismissed the claimant on that basis.

The tribunal held that the claimant had not shown it was likely, or that he had a pretty good chance of showing, that the protected disclosure was the reason or principal reason for dismissal. It considered the claimant's reliance on Ms Murphy's report, but noted that the report focused on only one of the allegations, that the claimant and Mr Board had already referred to it during the earlier investigation meeting, and that there was no evidence the independent investigators were influenced by Ms Dodds. The application for interim relief was therefore rejected.