In person For both v Respondent — 2024

At the hearing on 3 January 2024, Employment Judge Postle considered the claimant's application for interim relief in a claim pleaded as constructive unfair dismissal under s.103A ERA 1996. The claimant said he had been forced to resign after making a number of qualifying protected disclosures and that he had suffered detrimental treatment as a result. The respondents said the resignation was of the claimant's own volition and followed concerns about performance, including a formal performance improvement plan introduced in November 2023.

The tribunal applied the interim relief test under s.128 and s.129 ERA 1996 and asked whether the claimant had a 'pretty good chance of success' on the material then available. The judge noted that the alleged disclosures were vague, and it was not clear when they were made, to whom, whether they were protected disclosures, whether they were made in the reasonable belief that they were true, or whether they were in the public interest. The tribunal also identified causation issues, including the respondents' case that Mr Mossendew had investigated the first alleged disclosure and that he had employed the claimant knowing of his previous history.

The tribunal concluded that it was impossible at that stage to say the claim had a pretty good chance of success. It noted that there were around 12 alleged protected disclosures and 16 alleged detriments to be resolved at a full hearing, requiring detailed witness evidence. The application for interim relief was therefore held not to be well founded.