Sonia Srivastava v Brand Advance Ltd and 1 other — 2021

Employment Judge Housego heard the claimant's application for interim relief on 5 May 2021. The claimant said she had been dismissed by the second respondent because she had made public interest disclosures, and she also said sex and race discrimination formed part of the reason for her dismissal. The judge set out the statutory framework in ss.128 to 130 ERA 1996 and treated the task as a summary assessment on the papers, without oral evidence or findings of fact. The judgment also noted that there was no interim relief available for sex and race discrimination claims.

The tribunal concluded that the application failed at the first stage because the claimant had not clearly identified what disclosures were said to have been made, to whom, or when, and the respondents did not accept that any disclosures had been made. On the material before it, the judge could not form the view that it was likely the claimant would establish qualifying and protected disclosures for the purposes of interim relief.

The tribunal also held that it was not likely, on the papers, that the claimant would show the disclosures were the reason or principal reason for dismissal. The respondent said the dismissal was for performance and misconduct, and the judge considered there was insufficient evidence to conclude that the statutory threshold for interim relief was met. The application for interim relief was therefore dismissed, and no monetary award was made in this judgment.