Case 4103455/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v Centred (Scotland) and others — 2023
- Case reference
- 4103455/2023
- Decision date
- 28 July 2023
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge L Wiseman
- Venue
- Glasgow
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant presented a claim on 20 June 2023 alleging unfair dismissal, automatic unfair dismissal because the reason for dismissal was protected disclosures, and detriment for making those disclosures. The respondents accepted that she had been dismissed on 13 June 2023 but said the reason was gross misconduct and denied that protected disclosures had been made. The hearing before Employment Judge L Wiseman was to determine the claimant’s application for interim relief only.
The tribunal set out the interim relief test under sections 128 and 129 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and the guidance in the authorities cited by the parties, including that the claimant had to show a pretty good chance of success and that the word "likely" in section 129 required a significantly higher degree of likelihood than merely more likely than not. The tribunal also noted the distinction between the making of information disclosures and mere expression of concerns, and the need for a reasonable belief that the disclosures tended to show a breach of legal obligation.
On the evidence before it, the tribunal decided that the claimant had a pretty good chance of success in proving that some of the matters raised with Ms MacDonald on 17 March 2023 amounted to disclosures of information. However, it was not satisfied that she had a pretty good chance of showing a reasonable belief that the alleged disclosures tended to show a breach of legal obligation. The tribunal also considered that there was not a pretty good chance of proving that the principal reason for dismissal was the making of protected disclosures, noting in particular that some matters relied on by the claimant pre-dated any disclosure and that there was evidence of other issues in the employment relationship.
The tribunal therefore dismissed the application for interim relief. It stated that the witness statements were largely repetitive of the claim form and had not been tested in cross-examination, and it did not make findings on the substantive merits of the whistleblowing dismissal claim.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | Interim relief application under ss.128-129 ERA 1996 was dismissed. The tribunal did not determine the substantive whistleblowing unfair dismissal claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
7 references- s.128 ERA 1996
- s.129 ERA 1996
- s.103A ERA 1996
- s.43B ERA 1996
- pretty good chance of success
- significantly higher degree of likelihood
- Cavendish Munro / Kilraine distinction
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.