Ms T Szucs v Surrey County Council — 2023

The tribunal considered the claimant's application for interim relief pending determination of her claim that she had been automatically unfairly dismissed for making protected disclosures under section 103A ERA 1996. The judge stated that no findings of fact were being made and approached the matter as an expeditious summary assessment on untested evidence.

The claimant relied on 11 alleged disclosures made between July 2022 and February 2023, concerning matters said to involve health and safety, discrimination, harassment, victimisation, and legal obligations. The tribunal held that, on the material then available, it could not reasonably conclude that it was likely that any or all of the alleged disclosures would satisfy the statutory test for protected disclosures. The judge noted limited detail for a number of oral disclosures, factual disputes about what was said, and uncertainty as to whether the disclosures conveyed information, were made in the public interest, and were reasonably believed to tend to show a relevant failure.

The tribunal also held that it was not likely, at that stage, that the claimant would show that the reason or principal reason for dismissal was the making of protected disclosures. The respondent's stated case was that dismissal was for gross misconduct relating to postings made by the claimant and accessing confidential information. Applying the interim relief threshold, the judge concluded that either explanation for dismissal might prove correct at a final hearing, so the claimant had not shown the required pretty good chance of success. The application for interim relief was therefore refused.