Mr P O’Sullivan v Metroline Travel Limited — 2021

The claimant applied for interim relief on the basis that his dismissal was contrary to s.103A Employment Rights Act 1996, alleging that the real reason for dismissal was protected disclosures made on 24 September 2020 rather than his conduct in handing out leaflets on 11 January 2021. The tribunal applied the interim relief test of whether the claimant had a "pretty good chance" of succeeding at a final hearing.

The tribunal found that the claimant did not have a pretty good chance of establishing two of the three alleged protected disclosures. For the remaining alleged disclosure, an open letter sent to the respondent's managing director and copied to others, the tribunal accepted there was a pretty good chance a final tribunal would find that it contained information tending to show danger to health and safety, and that the authors reasonably believed it was made in the public interest.

The application failed because the tribunal was not persuaded there was a pretty good chance of showing that the alleged disclosure was the reason or principal reason for dismissal. The tribunal noted the absence of evidence that the dismissing officer knew about the alleged disclosures, that someone who knew about them influenced her decision, or that the disciplinary process was a sham or a Jhuti-type case. The respondent's costs application was also refused, although the tribunal found the interim relief application had no reasonable prospect of success; the tribunal declined to exercise its discretion to award costs or certify the application as totally without merit.