Ms C Thompson v Maintel Holdings plc Held at: London South Employment Tribunal by video — 2024

The tribunal heard an application for interim relief under s.128 ERA 1996 based on the claimant's automatic unfair dismissal claim under s.103A ERA 1996 for protected disclosures. It held that the claimant had not applied within seven days of the termination of her interim CEO appointment, so interim relief could not be sought for that role; the application therefore proceeded only in relation to her Executive Chair employment. The tribunal applied the expeditious summary assessment described in London City Airport v Chacko, with the higher "pretty good chance" threshold referred to in Taplin and Dandpat.

On the alleged disclosures said to have been made at the 31 January 2024 meeting, the claimant said she told Mr Booth that the dividend proposal would breach the Companies Act and HSBC covenants. The tribunal noted that this was not reflected in the meeting minutes and that the diary extract the claimant said she had made was not before the tribunal. It held that this conflict of evidence needed to be tried at a final hearing with disclosure and oral evidence, and that on the material before it the claimant could not be said to have a near certain or pretty good chance of proving that those disclosures were made and satisfied the statutory test.

On the grievance dated 23 February 2024, the tribunal accepted that some of the matters raised were likely to meet the s.43B ERA 1996 definition, including alleged breaches of AIM listing rules and FCA Market Abuse Regulations, because they were disclosed to the employer and were likely, on a rough summary assessment, to tend to show breaches of legal obligations made in the public interest. However, the tribunal said it was not clear why the claimant's Executive Chair role was terminated, and it concluded that it was not likely that the principal reason for dismissal was the protected disclosures. The application for interim relief was therefore refused.