Mr P Parry v University of Surrey — 2022

This was a hearing of Mr P Parry's application for interim relief under ss.128-129 ERA 1996, arising from his allegation that he had been dismissed for making protected disclosures contrary to s.103A ERA. The respondent did not attend. The Employment Judge applied the interim relief threshold, namely whether the claimant had a "pretty good chance" of succeeding at the final hearing, referring to Taplin v Shippam and Safraz v Ministry of Justice, and also had regard to the statutory tests for qualifying disclosures under s.43A and s.43B ERA 1996.

The judge considered four disclosures relied on by the claimant. PD1, a July 2019 email about parking enforcement and access to DVLA records, and PD2, a 13 February 2020 grievance about GDPR and the parking permit application process, were treated as likely to be protected disclosures. PD3, concerning a September 2020 grievance about a reception desk rota and health and safety, was not regarded as likely to satisfy the reasonable-belief and public-interest requirements. PD4, consisting of documents sent in response to Adam Child's investigation report and alleging failures to make reasonable adjustments under the Equality Act 2010, was also not regarded as likely to qualify because the material was largely disagreement with the report and personal grievance rather than information made in the public interest.

On causation, the judge held that it was not likely that the protected disclosures were the reason or principal reason for dismissal. The disclosures were made in 2019 and early 2020, whereas dismissal took place in December 2021, and the judge considered that timing made retaliatory dismissal unlikely. The contemporaneous dismissal materials instead pointed to a complete and irretrievable breakdown in the working relationship and in trust and confidence, with the panel concerned about the claimant's conduct towards colleagues and managers. The judge therefore concluded that the claimant had not shown a pretty good chance of establishing the s.103A allegation and rejected the application for interim relief.