In person For the v Mr M Ramsbottom, Senior Litigation Consultant — 2025

On 7 August 2025, Employment Judge S Moore sitting alone heard Mr A Sood's application for interim relief against ICTS UK and Ireland. The tribunal also allowed the respondent's late Response under rule 21 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2024, accepting that the delay was minimal, the explanation was plausible, and the respondent had an arguable defence.

The claim form, lodged on 15 May 2025, pleaded unfair dismissal, whistleblowing, arrears of pay and holiday pay. For the interim relief application the tribunal applied the Taplin, Sarfraz, Chacko and Parsons authorities and asked whether it appeared likely that the final tribunal would find that the reason or principal reason for dismissal was a protected disclosure. It identified only two possible disclosures pleaded by the claimant, namely a subject access request and complaints to regulatory authorities, but both were made after the dismissal on 9 May 2025. The tribunal also noted a 12 May 2025 email challenging the dismissal and enclosing a school letter, but that too post-dated the dismissal.

The tribunal accepted the respondent's evidence that it had told the claimant on 28 February 2025 that he had passed interview and that vetting would proceed, that a reference was sought from Greenford High School on 5 March 2025, and that the claimant was later included in a 9 May 2025 email listing 26 people who had failed their vetting process and whose contracts were to be terminated. It found no evidence that any protected disclosure preceded the dismissal and concluded that the disclosures appeared to have followed the dismissal rather than caused it. Interim relief was therefore dismissed, and no monetary award was made.