In person v Respondent — 2023

Mrs S Messi presented a claim on 23 August 2023 alleging automatic unfair dismissal contrary to section 103A of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and detriment for making protected disclosures contrary to section 47B, together with an application for interim relief. At the hearing on 2 October 2023 before Employment Judge Glennie, the tribunal applied sections 128 and 129 of the 1996 Act and the authorities in Ministry of Justice v Sarfraz and London City Airport Ltd v Chacko, so the question was whether there was a "pretty good chance" that the claimant would succeed on the relevant dismissal complaint.

The judge accepted that the email to the ICO was likely to amount to a disclosure of information about an alleged breach of legal obligation, and that it was likely to satisfy section 43F in the sense that the claimant reasonably believed the matter fell within the ICO's responsibility and the information was substantially true. However, the tribunal was not persuaded that it was likely the claimant believed the disclosure was made in the public interest, or that any such belief would have been reasonable. The judge also found no evidence of the alleged disclosures to the HSE or EHRC.

The tribunal further found it not likely that any protected disclosure was the sole or principal reason for dismissal. It noted the employer's stated reasons, including that the role was office-based, the claimant had sought to work from home because of builders and then by reference to a fit note and reasonable adjustment request, the employer considered there was a lack of candour, and the claimant had not provided details of previous employers as requested. On that basis, the application for interim relief was refused; the substantive claims were not finally determined in this judgment.