In Person For the v Respondent — 2024

The tribunal heard Mr Hamill's application for interim relief under s.128 ERA 1996. It recorded that no evidence was heard, no findings of fact were made, and the respondent had not yet filed Grounds of Response. Matters such as the exact termination date, whether there had been a dismissal, and the reason for termination were therefore not formally before the tribunal at this stage.

The claimant alleged that he had been dismissed because of protected disclosures within s.103A ERA 1996. The first alleged disclosure was said to have been made on 13 or 14 March 2024 and concerned a dog incident at a property, a child left in a car with the dog, workload and safety concerns, and missed appointments. Two further alleged disclosures were said to have been made on 25 March 2024 and 7 May 2024 and related to training and compliance.

Applying s.128 and s.129 ERA 1996 and the Taplin 'pretty good chance' approach, the judge concluded that the claimant had not shown that it was sufficiently likely he would succeed at the final hearing. The alleged 13/14 March disclosure predated the respondent's alleged termination date and might have influenced a dismissal decision, but the later disclosures were after the alleged termination or after the decision to dismiss. The tribunal also held that it was not yet clear that the 13/14 March disclosure would be found to be a qualifying disclosure, because it was not clear that the claimant reasonably believed it was in the public interest and he had not identified which s.43B categories he relied on.

The respondent's submission that any dismissal may have been for performance reasons, with the claimant still on probation, was not resolved on this summary application. The tribunal therefore refused interim relief and made no final decision on the merits of the underlying protected-disclosure dismissal claim.