In person For the v Respondent — 2025

The hearing concerned the claimant's application for interim relief. The claimant said he had been automatically unfairly dismissed for whistleblowing and for making a flexible working request, but the tribunal proceeded only on the protected disclosure basis because the flexible working ground was not identified as a basis for interim relief under section 128 ERA 1996.

The tribunal made clear that it was not making findings of fact and was carrying out a broad summary assessment. On the material available, the claimant had not given a specific example of making a disclosure to the respondent, including approximate dates or details of when alleged disclosures were made.

The tribunal concluded that the claimant had not met the high interim relief threshold of showing a likely success at final hearing. The application for interim relief was refused, with the tribunal also noting that the respondent had put forward an evidenced and plausible alternative reason for dismissal.