In person For the v Respondent — 2020

The claimant resigned on 16 January 2020 and on 19 January 2020 presented an ET1 seeking interim relief under s.128 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, together with claims of discrimination and unfair dismissal. The tribunal said interim relief is available only if the alleged unfair dismissal was for a s.129 reason, and applied the Dandpat "pretty good chance of success" test, citing Taplin v C Shippam Ltd. It also set out the elements of constructive dismissal.

On the facts, the claimant had started work through an agency on 25 March 2019 and became a direct employee on 18 June 2019. He raised grievances about another employee, later raised a race discrimination issue on 10 December 2019, and said that on 4 December 2019 he had made a protected disclosure about an oil drum on a bund. The respondent investigated the complaints, separated him from the other employee, and later extended his probation by three months after a performance review that was broadly positive but identified concerns about behaviour, attitude, and efficiency.

The judge found the claim for breach of contract weak because the respondent had prima facie reasons to extend probation and because the claimant waited nearly a month after that extension before resigning. Even if constructive dismissal were arguable, the tribunal was not satisfied that the resignation was caused by the alleged protected disclosure; the judge considered that the reasons appeared to be broader dissatisfactions with the company. Interim relief was therefore refused.

After that ruling, the respondent applied for costs, but the tribunal refused the application. Although the claimant had lost, the judge held that the claim was not so tenuous or unreasonable that it should be treated as an abuse of process, and noted that it is normal for litigants in person to make mistakes and bring claims that fail. The judgment did not determine the underlying discrimination claims.