In person, assisted by Mr S Aries For the v Respondent — 2018

This was an application for interim relief heard on 29 August 2018 under ss.128, 129 and 103A ERA 1996 after the claimant was dismissed with effect from 8 August 2018. The tribunal emphasised that, because the hearing proceeded under rule 95 and before the respondent had filed a full response, its task was not to make findings of fact but to make an informed prediction about whether a full tribunal would likely find that the reason, or principal reason, for dismissal was protected disclosure.

The claimant relied on a series of emails sent in July 2018 in relation to the Moodle project and the CoSector report. The tribunal accepted that the claimant likely included Mr Kenworthy’s report in her disclosure, but it was not persuaded that she had shown a reasonable belief that the material disclosed a breach of legal obligation in the way she contended. It noted difficulties with the suggested obligation to provide online learning, alternative reliance on RHUL’s contracts with CoSector, and the GDPR point, and it considered the emails to be at least capable of being understood as concerns about project pressure, timing, and going outside line management.

On causation, the tribunal accepted that the probationary process followed soon after the first email, but said chronology alone did not establish causation. It placed weight on Dr Rata’s probation review statement, accepted that the dismissing officer was Mr Johnson rather than Dr Rata, and noted that the CoSector report had already been circulated widely, so the evidence did not point to any obvious cover-up. The tribunal rejected the claimant’s alternative explanations as speculative or internally inconsistent, and concluded that she was unlikely to prove that protected disclosure was the sole or principal reason for dismissal. The application for interim relief was therefore refused.