Igor Vaintraub v Jusu Brothers Ltd — 2024

This was an interim relief hearing heard by CVP on 18 March 2024. The claimant, Igor Vaintraub, had been employed by Jusu Brothers Ltd as a sous chef and his employment ended on 25 January 2024. He applied for interim relief on 30 January 2024 relying on section 100 ERA 1996 and section 103A ERA 1996. The tribunal refused to convert the matter into a final hearing and dealt only with the interim relief application.

The tribunal set out the statutory framework in sections 128 and 129 ERA 1996 and the authorities on interim relief, including the requirement that the claimant show a "pretty good chance of success" and that "likely" means more than a mere possibility. It also referred to the authorities on protected disclosures and causation, including Eigar Securities LLP v Korshunova, Kilraine v LB Wandsworth, Chesterton Global Ltd v Nurmohamed, Taplin v Shippam Ltd, Dandpat v The University of Bath, Ministry of Justice v Sarfraz, and Abernethy v Mott Hay and Anderson. The tribunal said it would not make binding findings of fact at this stage and would assess the material impressionistically.

The tribunal proceeded on the basis most favourable to the claimant and assumed, for the purpose of the application, that the relevant section 100 elements were present and that the alleged disclosures had the necessary characteristics of protected disclosures. It noted the claimant's examples of reporting food hygiene, health and safety, and other alleged legal breaches, and it referred to the respondent's position that the WhatsApp group was used to report issues and that the claimant had no designated health and safety role.

On the contemporaneous documents, the tribunal relied on the dismissal email of 25 January 2024, which stated that employment was terminated with immediate effect for repeated disrespectful behaviour towards clients, staff, the manager and the owner, and that the reason was serious insubordination. It also referred to WhatsApp messages and other documents showing conduct issues. On that material, the tribunal held that the respondent had an arguable defence and that the claimant had not shown a likely causal link between the dismissal and either section 100 ERA 1996 or section 103A ERA 1996. The application for interim relief was therefore not well founded and interim relief was not appropriate.