Ms S Blair-Manning v Nottingham Castle Trust — 2021

This was a preliminary hearing on the claimant's application for interim relief under section 128 ERA 1996, brought in connection with an alleged automatic unfair dismissal claim under section 103A ERA 1996. The tribunal also dealt with a Rule 50 application by the respondent for anonymity, which it refused because the respondent had not given evidence beyond a general concern about reputation and the judge considered that open justice could be protected by making clear that any sexual-behaviour allegation was unproven at that stage.

On privilege and admissibility, the tribunal held that the attendance note of the 19 July 2021 lawyers' call and the minutes of the 22 July 2021 board meeting were likely admissible. It found that the 22 July minutes had probably been disclosed deliberately and privilege waived, and that, although there had likely been an agreement to speak on a without prejudice basis on 19 July, the discussion recorded in the attendance note was not a genuine attempt to settle the dispute. Those documents were therefore considered when deciding interim relief.

The tribunal then examined the claimant's alleged protected disclosures, which were set out as governance concerns and behaviour concerns in the grievance and pleadings. It found that many allegations were too general, lacked factual content, or did not identify the legal obligation said to have been breached. For several allegations the tribunal also found no likely reasonable belief that the matters were in the public interest. It treated the allegation of inappropriate sexual behaviour towards a female external consultant by one of the trustees as a specific disclosure of information and as likely to engage the Equality Act 2010, but still found that the public-interest element was not likely to be established.

On causation, the tribunal accepted that there were factual disputes and that there was evidence from which an inference might be drawn that the grievance and related complaints played a part in events, including the board's decision-making in July and August 2021. It also noted evidence of pre-existing performance concerns and board dissatisfaction, and said the process leading to dismissal appeared unfair. However, the tribunal held that, even taking those matters into account, it was not likely that a final tribunal would find that the sole or principal reason for dismissal was one or more protected disclosures. The application for interim relief was therefore dismissed.