Mr D Chapman, Solicitor. For the v Ms C Elvin, Litigation Consultant. — 2019

The claimant, Mr William Egan, was employed as a maintenance manager by the first respondent from 1 July 2019 until his summary dismissal on 21 September 2019. He applied for interim relief under s.128 ERA 1996 on the basis that he had made a qualifying disclosure by email on or around 19 September 2019, which he said was a protected disclosure within s.43B and s.43C ERA 1996. The tribunal recorded that the application was confined to the interim relief question and that no oral evidence was heard at this stage.

Applying the approach in Taplin v C Shipham Ltd and London City Airport Ltd v Chacko, the tribunal said it had to make a broad assessment of whether there appeared to be a pretty good chance that the claimant would succeed at the substantive hearing in establishing that the principal reason for dismissal was a protected disclosure within s.103A ERA 1996. The respondents relied on the dismissal letter, which said the decision was based on three matters: alleged speeding in a company car on 11 September 2019, removal of a company credit card and computer on 19 September 2019, and a personal purchase of £429 on 20 September 2019.

The tribunal noted a substantial dispute about the emails said to contain the protected disclosures, with the claimant saying they were received and the respondents saying they were not sent and were forgeries or fakes. It observed that the wording, spelling and grammar in the alleged emails bore in many instances a remarkable resemblance to the claimant's own emails and messages and little resemblance to other documents and the second respondent's usage of language. On that material, the tribunal was not persuaded that it appeared more than likely that the claimant would succeed in establishing protected disclosure dismissal.

The application for interim relief therefore failed and was dismissed. The tribunal said it was not making findings of fact on the merits of the underlying claims, and it also stated that the judge would not sit on the substantive hearing.