Ms R Kennedy, counsel For the v Respondent — 2020

Mr Buckingham applied for interim relief after being dismissed by Mobile Streams plc on 9 April 2020, saying that he had been dismissed because he made protected disclosures about payments totalling £12,000 to Krunch. The tribunal set out the interim relief test under sections 128 and 129 Employment Rights Act 1996 and applied the established "pretty good chance" standard, noting that it had to make only a summary assessment at this stage.

The tribunal first considered territorial jurisdiction. It accepted that Mr Buckingham had lived and worked in Florida since January 2006, was paid through a US subsidiary, was paid in dollars into a US bank account, and paid tax in the United States. Although there were connections with Great Britain, including his British nationality, the respondent's London listing, and the English-law contract, the tribunal held that jurisdiction was not clearly established and said that point would need to be heard at a preliminary hearing. On that basis alone, the interim relief application failed.

The tribunal then said that, even if it was wrong on jurisdiction, the claimant still had not shown a pretty good chance of success on the remaining requirements. It considered that there was a disclosure of information and that the public interest point was arguable because the respondent was an AIM-listed company with public shareholders. However, the reasonableness of any belief that the information showed fraud, breach of legal obligation, or concealment needed testing in evidence, and the tribunal could not say on the papers that the claimant had a pretty good chance of proving the disclosure was protected or that it was the principal reason for dismissal.

On causation, the tribunal noted that the dismissal email followed the disclosure email by about two hours, but there were conflicting board minutes and witness statements suggesting the decision to dismiss may have been made before the disclosure. It also noted an issue as to when, if at all, the NOMADs passed the disclosure on to the respondent. The tribunal concluded that these matters required detailed findings of fact and that the claimant had not shown a pretty good chance of success. The application for interim relief therefore failed and no order for continuation of employment was made.