Mr R Patel v Nauman Khan, Faisal Ali, Yasin Khan, AK9 and FM Solutions Ltd — 2021

Mr Patel applied for interim relief in a case he described as involving whistleblowing and Covid-19. He said that on 19 June 2021, while visiting a quarantining individual at the Days Inn Hotel, Leicester Forest Motorway Services, he encountered the family circumstances of that individual, called an ambulance because he was concerned the children might have Covid-19 symptoms, and then reported the matter to the respondent. The tribunal recorded that the claim form itself did not set out details of any alleged protected disclosure, and that a separate allegation of less favourable treatment after dismissal could not have formed a qualifying disclosure.

Applying section 129(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996, read with section 103A, the tribunal held that interim relief could only be granted if it appeared likely that the tribunal would find that the reason or principal reason for dismissal was protected disclosure. It concluded that Mr Patel had not made out a public interest disclosure dismissal claim and had not identified information in the claim form or submissions that could amount to a protected disclosure under section 43B. The application for interim relief was therefore dismissed. The judgment noted that the respondent indicated it would later apply for costs, but no costs order was made in this decision.