Mr T Croxford QC (Counsel) For the v Respondent — 2019

The hearing on 27 June 2019 was limited to the claimant's application for interim relief, presented on 17 May 2019 after her employment ended on 14 May 2019. The tribunal noted that the claimant had also brought claims of unfair dismissal, discrimination on grounds of race and sex, and protected disclosure detriment and dismissal, together with victimisation, but those substantive claims were not determined at this hearing. The judge said no findings of fact were made and the parties' evidence was limited and untested.

The tribunal identified the question under s.129 ERA 1996 as whether it appeared likely that the reason for dismissal was the making of a protected disclosure within s.43B ERA 1996. It applied the summary assessment approach in London City Airport v Chacko, the "pretty good chance of success" standard from Taplin v C Shippam, and noted that complexity alone is not a reason to refuse interim relief, referring to Raja v Secretary of State for Justice.

The claimant relied on a large number of alleged disclosures and argued that recent disclosures around her October 2018 appraisal and subsequent emails led to the dismissal. The respondents disputed that interim relief could be granted on the evidence because multiple alleged disclosures were relied on, some disclosures were said not to be protected disclosures at all, and there were issues about legal advice privilege where the claimant's role involved in-house legal advice.

The tribunal held that the claimant had not satisfied the demanding interim relief test. It was not persuaded on the limited evidence before it that the protected-disclosure dismissal claim was nearer to certain than to a possibility, or that it had a pretty good chance of success at a full hearing. The application was therefore refused. No monetary remedy was awarded at this stage, and the reasons recorded that the cases were to be joined and listed for case management on 2 October.