Ms P Proteasa, solicitor For the v Mr M Difelice, Solicitor — 2021

Mr R Limrani worked as a Lead Youth Worker from 4 January 2021 and was dismissed on 22 March 2021 during his probationary period, with termination effective on 5 April 2021. He applied for interim relief on the basis that he had been dismissed because he had made protected disclosures. The tribunal said interim relief was only potentially available for the whistleblowing dismissal complaint, not for the section 100(1)(c) or section 44 complaints, so those claims were rejected for this application.

Applying the Taplin line of authority and the summary interim-relief test, the judge considered the alleged disclosures about staffing levels, lack of an ID badge and work phone, CCTV and lighting, the 10 March 2021 incident at the youth centre, debriefing after that incident, and the presence of an unverified visitor. The tribunal found that there was a pretty good chance the claimant could show that some matters were disclosures of information and, in particular, that the staffing-related disclosure and the disclosure about the 10 March incident could tend to show health and safety risk. It was less satisfied about the disclosures relating to a phone or badge, CCTV and lighting, personal undermining by the manager, and the DBS status of the visitor. The judge made no final finding about what actually happened during the 10 March incident.

The application failed on causation. The tribunal was not satisfied that the claimant had a pretty good chance of proving that any protected disclosure was the sole or principal reason for dismissal. It noted the respondent's case that the claimant was still on probation and that the dismissal decision was based on suitability for the role, including concerns about adapting to the respondent's open-access, youth-led model, relationship with the young people, and an alleged breach of confidence. No continuation order was made and no monetary remedy was awarded in this judgment.