Mr Ranjit Dhanda v Erewash Credit Union — 2023

This was an application for interim relief after Mr Ranjit Dhanda was dismissed by Erewash Credit Union on 1 November 2022. He presented an ET1 on 7 November 2022 alleging automatic unfair dismissal for making a protected qualifying disclosure and sought interim relief under section 128(1)(a)(i) of the Employment Rights Act 1996. Employment Judge Clark heard the application on 1 December 2022, sitting alone, and made no findings of fact. The judgment records that the task was a broad, summary assessment of whether there was a 'pretty good chance' that the claimant would succeed at a final hearing.

The judge considered there was a pretty good chance that the claimant could show he made communications in March and April 2022 about loans that appeared to have been obtained fraudulently, involving possible deficiencies in identity checks. The tribunal also considered there was a pretty good chance that those communications contained information tending to show fraud or possible breaches of Money Laundering Regulations, and that the claimant could show a reasonable belief that the matters were in the public interest. The tribunal accepted that the claimant was dismissed and that, in other respects, he could present a claim for automatic unfair dismissal.

The application failed on causation. The judge considered there were factors that could point towards a link between the disclosures and dismissal, including some critical responses in April, the pace and structure of the performance improvement process, and features of the dismissal process that might warrant scrutiny at a final hearing. However, the judge also identified substantial points against causation: the April concerns were framed around the claimant exceeding his role and criticising the Chief Executive, there was a period over the summer when matters appeared to go well, the PIP arose later from performance and conduct concerns, and there was an alternative explanation based on the claimant's performance, his response to issues, and his out-of-hours building access.

The tribunal concluded that there was no 'smoking gun' in the contemporaneous documents and that there were as many factors pointing away from as towards the protected disclosure being connected to dismissal. It therefore held that the claimant had not shown a pretty good chance of establishing that the disclosure was the reason, or principal reason, for dismissal. The interim relief application was dismissed, and no monetary remedy was awarded.