Claimant v Madhavji v Watson Ramsbottom Ltd — 2024

This was an application for interim relief in a complaint of constructive s.103A ERA 1996 unfair dismissal. The claimant, a solicitor employed by the respondent from February 2017, had been on sick leave from 5 September 2022 and resigned on 3 September 2024. She alleged that she had made protected disclosures about cyberstalking, misuse of her private data, and breaches of legal and regulatory obligations, and she relied on a series of alleged acts and omissions said to amount to a fundamental breach of the implied term of mutual trust and confidence.

The tribunal accepted, on a summary basis, that the claimant had a pretty good chance of showing that she made one or more protected disclosures to the respondent and/or the SRA. It considered that allegations about cyberstalking could amount to disclosures tending to show breaches of legal obligations, that the claimant had a reasonable basis for her belief, and that she had a pretty good chance of showing the disclosures were made in the public interest, including because she alleged misconduct involving solicitors and fee-paid members of the judiciary.

The tribunal did not, however, conclude that the claimant had a pretty good chance of establishing constructive dismissal or causation. It said that the matters pleaded as the alleged breach of contract would need evidence to be assessed, and it could not on a summary basis conclude that those matters were likely to amount to a breach of the implied duty of trust and confidence. It also found that it could not conclude that the claimant had a pretty good chance of showing she resigned because of those matters, noting differences between the pleaded case and the resignation letter and observing that some of the pleaded matters pre-dated the alleged protected disclosures.

Applying the s.128 and s.129 ERA 1996 interim relief test, and the authorities it cited on the meaning of "likely" and "pretty good chance of success", the tribunal refused the application for interim relief. It also noted, but did not rely on, a possible affirmation argument. No final decision was made on the underlying unfair dismissal complaint.