Mr A Wells v Serco Limited and 2 others — 2023

The Claimant alleged that he had been constructively dismissed by the First Respondent and that treatment after two alleged protected disclosures amounted to a breach of contract. He applied for interim relief on the basis that the principal reason for the alleged dismissal or treatment was protected disclosure under section 103A ERA 1996.

The tribunal applied the interim relief test and considered whether the Claimant had a pretty good chance of success at the final hearing. On the material available, including untested evidence and submissions, the tribunal found it could not conclude that the Claimant had such a chance of showing that the reason or principal reason for the alleged treatment was that he had made protected disclosures.

The tribunal noted that there were likely to be significant factual disputes about what happened and why, and that the burden would remain on the Claimant because he did not have two years' continuous employment for an ordinary unfair dismissal claim. It also found that it was not pretty likely that the Claimant would establish conduct amounting to a fundamental breach of contract such that he was constructively and unfairly dismissed. The application for interim relief was refused.