Mr I Khan v British Airways plc — 2026

The Tribunal refused Mr Khan's application for interim relief on his complaint that British Airways Plc automatically unfairly dismissed him because he made protected disclosures. It applied the section 129 ERA 1996 test of whether he had a "pretty good chance" of success at a final hearing. The hearing involved a summary assessment without oral evidence or findings of fact; it did not decide the underlying complaint.

For this limited assessment, the Tribunal considered that Mr Khan had a pretty good chance of proving that he sent two anonymous emails and that they reached some or all employees affected by the redundancy process. It also considered that he had a pretty good chance of showing that the emails disclosed information which he reasonably believed tended to show failures to meet legal duties. It did not, however, find a pretty good chance that he could prove a reasonable belief that the disclosures were in the public interest, given that they concerned a relatively small group of employees. It was also unclear whether the disclosures were made to his employer rather than only to affected employees.

The Tribunal further found no pretty good chance that Mr Khan could show that the disclosures were the sole or principal reason for his dismissal. His case that managers had identified him as the sender rested at that stage on indirect accounts, and it was uncertain whether the decision-makers knew of the emails. The redundancy consultation had begun well before the disclosures, involved trade unions and affected other employees. On the material before it, the Tribunal could not say that British Airways Plc was likely to fail to prove a reason for dismissal other than whistleblowing. No remedy was awarded on the interim application.