In Person For the v Respondent — 2021

The tribunal heard the claimant's application for interim relief at London Central by CVP on 12 October 2021. The claimant had presented a claim form on 6 September 2021 alleging unfair dismissal and automatic unfair dismissal for making protected disclosures. Employment Judge Brown sat alone, heard no live evidence, and had witness statements and documents from both sides.

Applying sections 128 and 129 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, the judge considered whether it was likely that a final tribunal would find the reason or principal reason for dismissal was a protected disclosure within section 103A. The judge held that some of the claimant's wording, in particular the 19 July 2021 and 23 August 2021 emails saying that Professor Higginson had likely misused CSI's money and had offered CSI commercial contracts to her brother, had a pretty good chance of being found to be a protected disclosure. The judge also considered those passages likely to have been made in the public interest.

The judge did not accept that the earlier emails of 13 May 2021 and 1 June 2021 were likely to amount to protected disclosures. Those passages were treated as general allegations or complaints, lacking specific factual content, and the judge said they did not likely show a criminal offence or misuse of funds. The judge also found that a further passage about academic posts prioritisation and lack of assessment criteria did not relate to misuse of public funds.

The application failed because the judge was not satisfied that it was likely that the protected disclosure was the principal reason for dismissal. The evidence showed extensive correspondence making numerous unspecific allegations over time, including allegations copied to multiple colleagues, and the dismissal letter described a fundamental and irretrievable breakdown in working relationships and repeated allegations of impropriety, lack of transparency, and refusal to engage with formal processes. The judge relied on the distinction between the fact of a disclosure and the manner in which it was made, and held that the high threshold for interim relief was not met. Interim relief was therefore refused, and the underlying merits were left for the final hearing.