Mr. H Moune Nkeng v Barclays Execution Services Ltd — 2023

This judgment concerned only the claimant's application for interim relief under sections 128-129 ERA 1996, made shortly after his dismissal. The tribunal considered the application on the basis of the claimant's pleaded s.103A ERA 1996 claim and did not determine his separate application to amend to add claims under sections 100 and 104 ERA 1996.

The judge directed herself that interim relief required a summary assessment of whether the claimant had a pretty good chance of succeeding at a full hearing on each element of the s.103A claim. On that basis, the tribunal was not satisfied that the claimant had a pretty good chance of establishing that the matters relied on were qualifying and protected disclosures, particularly where some were said to have been made in the course of tribunal litigation.

In any event, the tribunal was far from satisfied that the claimant had a pretty good chance of proving causation. The judge accepted that Ms Devlin was the decision-maker in the dismissal, but found the material before her did not show a sufficiently strong prospect that the sole or principal reason for dismissal was the making of protected disclosures. The application for interim relief was therefore dismissed, with the judge stating that she had made no binding findings of fact and that the substantive claim remained for later determination.