Mr A Rawlins-Catterall v Mazars LLP — 2023

Mr Rawlins-Catterall applied for interim relief on the basis that his dismissal was automatically unfair under s.103A ERA 1996 because he had made protected disclosures. The tribunal, sitting alone, said its task was limited to deciding whether it appeared likely that the final tribunal would find in his favour on that complaint. It therefore made no findings of fact and heard no oral evidence.

The tribunal set out the statutory test under s.128 and s.129(1) ERA 1996 and applied the authorities it cited on the meaning of “likely”, including Taplin v C Shippam Ltd and Ministry of Justice v Sarfraz. It also identified the substantive protected-disclosure requirements under Part IVA ERA 1996, including the need for a disclosure of information, a reasonable belief that it tended to show one of the s.43B matters, and a reasonable belief that the disclosure was made in the public interest. The tribunal noted that good faith now went to remedy only under s.123(6A) ERA 1996. It also referred to Royal Mail Ltd v Jhuti on the need to identify the sole or principal reason for dismissal.

The claimant relied on eight alleged disclosures, described in the reasons as PID 1 to PD8, and argued that they related to plagiarism, fraud, exam cheating, misrepresentations, and issues involving an occupational health provider and a colleague’s expertise. The tribunal considered each alleged disclosure and concluded that it was not likely that a final tribunal would find that they were protected disclosures within s.43A to s.43C ERA 1996. For several of them, the tribunal found that the claimant had not shown objectively reasonable grounds for believing that the conduct alleged amounted to a criminal offence or a breach of legal obligation; for others, it found that the material amounted to challenges to colleagues’ accounts or credibility rather than protected information.

On causation, the tribunal held that there was no convincing evidence of a causal connection between any alleged disclosure and the dismissal. It accepted the respondent’s case, supported by witness statements and documents, that dismissal was said to arise from an irreparable breakdown in working relations, the claimant’s performance and approach, and damaging comments posted on LinkedIn about a client. The tribunal therefore refused interim relief and dismissed the application.