Mr I Bull v JNP Group Consulting Engineers Limited AT A HEARING BY TELEPHONE CONFERENCE CALL — 2020

This was an interim relief hearing held by telephone conference call on 7 April 2020. The claimant, Mr I Bull, had been dismissed by letter dated 3 March 2020 and sought interim relief on the basis that the principal reason for dismissal was a protected qualifying disclosure, namely an allegation that the respondent had fraudulently overcharged a Network Rail contractor for work on the claimant's project. The judge decided the application on witness statements and documentary material only, without oral evidence, and described the exercise as a summary assessment under s.129 ERA 1996.

The tribunal was not satisfied that the claimant had shown a "pretty good chance" of succeeding on the protected disclosure case. It found that the alleged disclosure arose from a grievance about the allocation of hours on a fixed-price contract for £5,438 plus VAT, and that the contractual material did not show that the client was billed only for hours actually worked. On that basis, the judge was not persuaded that the claimant had a reasonable belief that the information tended to show a criminal offence, or that the disclosure was in the public interest.

The tribunal also held that there was a plausible non-disclosure reason for dismissal. The dismissal letter and surrounding events referred to an alleged failure to obey an instruction on 19 February 2020, the claimant's late arrival and lack of productive work that day, and an apparent breakdown in trust and confidence. The judge accepted that the reasons advanced were not so unsustainable that it could be said the tribunal was likely to reject them as false, and concluded that it was not likely the principal reason for dismissal was the alleged protected disclosure. The application for interim relief was therefore refused. If relief had been granted, the judge noted that the only possible order would have been continuation of contract, but no such order was made.