Case 2201123/2022 · Employment Tribunal

In Person For the v Mr T Belson, Director — 2022

Case reference: 2201123/2022
Decision date: 26 April 2022
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Brown Appearances

Indexed: 22 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

In Person For the

Respondent

Mr T Belson, Director

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The claimant applied for interim relief on the basis that her 28 February 2022 dismissal was automatically unfair because it was for making protected disclosures. The tribunal heard no live evidence and decided the application on witness statements and documents. It set out the statutory test under ss.128-129 ERA 1996 and the authorities on interim relief, including that the claimant had to show a significantly higher degree of likelihood than merely more likely than not that the final tribunal would find the dismissal was for the protected disclosures.

The tribunal found it likely that some of the claimant's disclosures were protected disclosures. In particular, it considered that the second disclosure to the chairman and the fifth email about the 2021 preliminary accounts were likely disclosures of information, with a reasonable belief that the figures were being misrepresented and that this could indicate criminality or breach of legal obligation. It also considered the 28 January 2022 email to Wilsons Solicitors likely fell within s.43G ERA 1996 because substantially the same information had already been disclosed to the employer. By contrast, it did not consider that the first, third, and fourth disclosures had been shown to satisfy the statutory conditions on the evidence before it.

The tribunal did not find that there was a sufficiently strong case that the protected disclosures were the principal reason for dismissal. It accepted that the claimant had been dismissed shortly after the alleged disclosures and without a fair process, but it also noted the wider background of divorce and settlement negotiations between the claimant and Mr Belson. On the material before it, the breakdown in those negotiations appeared to be the most proximate event to dismissal, and the respondent's account that redundancy followed that breakdown was as likely to succeed as the claimant's case. Interim relief was therefore refused, and the case was listed for a case management preliminary hearing.

Claims and outcomes

1 finding recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Whistleblowing	Interim relief application under ss.128-129 ERA 1996 was refused. The tribunal did not make a final determination of the underlying dismissal claim, only that it was not likely that the principal reason for dismissal would be protected disclosures under s.103A ERA 1996.	Dismissed	—	—

Legal tests applied

15 references

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.