Mr M Rahman v Egnaro Limited — 2025

Mr M Rahman applied for interim relief under s.128 Employment Rights Act 1996 in connection with an automatically unfair dismissal complaint said to arise from a protected disclosure. At the hearing on 13 November 2025, the tribunal explained that the only orders available on interim relief were reinstatement or re-engagement. Mr Rahman said he had thought interim relief meant he would be paid until the final hearing and that he did not want to work for Egnaro Limited again. He confirmed that he was withdrawing the application, and the tribunal therefore dismissed it.

For completeness, Employment Judge Bartlett recorded the decision he would have made had the application been pressed. The claimant had produced no documents in support of interim relief, and there was no clear assertion identifying the alleged disclosure, when it was made, or to whom it was made. The judge said the material provided only showed that the claimant was unhappy about an incident in which his phone was taken, damaged and returned by an irate customer. The respondent said the dismissal was for other reasons, including lateness and attitude.

Applying the interim relief authorities and the protected disclosure framework under ss.43B to 43H and s.103A ERA 1996, the judge concluded that he could not identify a sufficient basis for finding that Mr Rahman had a pretty good chance of succeeding on the underlying complaint. The judgment therefore records refusal of interim relief and no monetary award.