Case 3302575/2023 · Employment Tribunal

In person For the v Respondent — 2023

Case reference: 3302575/2023
Decision date: 12 July 2023
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Postle Appearances
Venue: Norwich

Indexed: 18 May 2026

Parties

1 named

Claimant

In person For the

Respondent

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The claimant applied for interim relief in respect of a claim that she was automatically unfairly dismissed under s.103A of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The alleged protected disclosures concerned health and safety matters said to have been raised on 15 October 2021 and 11 November 2021.

The tribunal considered the interim relief test, asking whether it appeared likely that the claimant would succeed at a full hearing. It noted that the claimant had raised health and safety concerns, but identified difficulties about public interest, reasonable belief, and causation, including whether the dismissal was principally because of alleged protected disclosures or because of events following an instruction to return to the line.

The tribunal was not convinced that the claimant had a pretty good chance and likelihood of succeeding at a full hearing. The application for interim relief therefore did not succeed.

Claims and outcomes

1 finding recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Whistleblowing	The judgment refused the claimant's interim relief application in respect of an automatic unfair dismissal complaint under s.103A ERA 1996 based on alleged public interest disclosures. It did not finally determine the underlying full hearing claim.	Dismissed	—	—

Legal tests applied

5 references

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.

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.