Mr T Henderson v River Clyde Property Management — 2018

The tribunal heard Mr Henderson's application for interim relief under ss.128-132 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. No evidence was led, and the judge said no findings in fact were made at this stage. The question was whether it appeared likely that the tribunal hearing the full case would find that the principal reason for dismissal was the protected disclosure alleged by the claimant.

Mr Henderson said he made a protected disclosure on 25 October 2018, that the respondents thanked him and sent health and safety staff to site, and that he was dismissed later that day. The respondents accepted that material was passed on but disputed that it amounted to a protected disclosure, disputed reasonable belief, and said the dismissal decision was made by Mr Robertson because of difficulties in the claimant's interaction and behaviour, with no awareness of any disclosure.

The judge rejected the claimant's reliance on Royal Mail v Jhuti as assisting his application, saying there was no suggestion that Mr Robertson had been misled and that the case supported the importance of the dismisser's state of mind. Having weighed the papers and submissions, the judge found there was a substantial factual dispute, no 'smoking gun', and no basis on the material available to say the claim had a pretty good chance of success. The statutory test for interim relief was not met, so the application was refused and the underlying claim was left to proceed in the ordinary way.