Case 3301741/2023 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Respondent — 2023
- Case reference
- 3301741/2023
- Decision date
- 24 February 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Quill
Parties
1 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal considered the claimant's application for interim relief based on an allegation that his dismissal was contrary to s.103A of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The claimant conceded that he was not dismissed on 2 February 2023, and the tribunal allowed the s.103A claim to continue on the basis of an alleged dismissal on 16 February 2023.
For the interim relief application, the tribunal applied the statutory test in s.129 ERA 1996 and the "pretty good chance" threshold from Taplin. It considered whether the claimant had a pretty good chance of showing protected disclosures and that they were the reason or principal reason for dismissal.
The tribunal found that the claimant had not shown a pretty good chance that the final tribunal would reject the respondent's stated dismissal reason, which concerned absence and refusal to attend work. The interim relief application was refused, while case management directions were made for the continuing claim.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | The application for interim relief based on alleged dismissal contrary to s.103A Employment Rights Act 1996 was refused. The substantive s.103A claim was allowed to continue on the basis of an alleged dismissal on 16 February 2023. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
11 references- s.129(1) Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.103A Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.43A Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.43B(1) Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.43C to s.43H Employment Rights Act 1996
- Taplin v C Shipham Ltd
- Ministry of Justice v Sarfraz
- Wollenberg Global Gaming Ventures (Leeds) Ltd
- Chesterton Global Ltd v Nurmohamed
- Kuzel v Roche Products Ltd
- Abernethy v Mott, Hay and Anderson
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 4 PDF on gov.uk
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.