Case 4111400/2019 · Employment Tribunal
E.T. Z (WR) EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 4111400/2019 Interim Relief Hearing held in Edinburgh on November 2019 Employment Judge M A Macleod Mr M Doherty v Avaloq Innovation Ltd — 2019
- Case reference
- 4111400/2019
- Decision date
- 12 November 2019
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Murdo Macleod
- Venue
- Edinburgh
Parties
2 namedClaimant
E.T. Z (WR) EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 4111400/2019 Interim Relief Hearing held in Edinburgh on November 2019 Employment Judge M A Macleod Mr M Doherty
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was an interim relief hearing on 8 November 2019 before Employment Judge Murdo Macleod. The claimant, who appeared in person, said he had been automatically unfairly dismissed for making protected disclosures and that he had also brought discrimination complaints on the grounds of disability and sexual orientation. The respondent opposed both the merits of the claim and the application for interim relief.
Applying Taplin v C Shippam Ltd and Ministry of Justice v Sarfraz, the tribunal asked whether the claimant had a "pretty good chance of success" at the final hearing. It held that the test was not met. The tribunal said there were unresolved disputes about whether the alleged disclosures were qualifying disclosures within s.43B ERA 1996 and whether they were made in the public interest.
The tribunal also found that the reason for dismissal remained a central dispute. The claimant said the dismissal followed his disclosures, while the respondent relied on performance concerns recorded in documents including the 20 March 2019 email, the Avaloq Appreciate appraisal, and the September 2019 dismissal letter. Because those issues could not be resolved without hearing the evidence in full, the tribunal refused interim relief. The judgment did not decide the underlying discrimination or dismissal claims on their merits.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | Interim relief application under ss.128-132 ERA 1996 refused; the tribunal did not determine the underlying whistleblowing dismissal claim at this hearing. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- Taplin v C Shippam Ltd
- Ministry of Justice v Sarfraz
- s.129(1) ERA 1996
- s.43B ERA 1996
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.