In person For the v Respondent — 2023

This hearing determined the claimant’s application for interim relief under s.128 ERA 1996 following her dismissal on 9 November 2023, which was said to be by reason of redundancy. The tribunal applied the interim relief test in whistleblowing cases, asking whether it was likely that, at a full hearing, the claimant would establish a protected disclosure and that the principal reason for dismissal was that disclosure.

The tribunal considered emails in June 2023 about proposed payment from a Russian client through a UAE bank in the context of sanctions. It found that the claimant probably made disclosures in those emails, but those communications did not tend to show that the respondent was likely to commit a criminal offence or fail to comply with a legal obligation. The tribunal also held that, if the claimant repeated the point orally, that would not amount to a disclosure of information in itself, and in any event it was likely that any such information was covered by legal professional privilege for the purposes of s.43B(4) ERA 1996.

On causation, the tribunal found it unlikely that a final tribunal would conclude that the principal reason for dismissal was any protected disclosure. Contemporaneous documents showed that the director, Ms Grassel, had been concerned about the claimant’s performance for some weeks before June 2023 and was moving towards a capability process and possibly dismissal. The tribunal also noted that the eventual decision to dismiss referred to performance concerns and, later, the potential cost saving from redundancy. The respondent’s witnesses gave sworn evidence to the same effect, and the claimant did not provide evidence or a developed argument showing that whistleblowing was the main reason.

The tribunal therefore dismissed the interim relief application. It recorded that the claimant’s case on dismissal included other suggested reasons, such as pressure from Sweden, alleged racist attitudes, and knowledge of an upcoming medical procedure, but it did not find those matters made it likely that protected disclosures were the principal reason for dismissal.