In person For the v Mr N Henry, Advocate — 2023

Ms Helen Chapman applied for interim relief after saying that Cornwallis Care Services Limited had dismissed her because she made protected disclosures about health and safety issues at the Frances Bolitho Nursing Home. The respondent said the dismissal was for gross misconduct following a resident's complaint. The tribunal recorded that this hearing was limited to the interim relief application and that no findings of fact were required for that statutory test.

The tribunal set out the relevant law under section 128 ERA 1996 and the authorities it relied on for interim relief, including the need for an expeditious summary assessment and the question whether the claimant had a 'pretty good chance of success' at the full hearing. It also noted the underlying protected-disclosure framework, including sections 43A to 43C and 103A of the Employment Rights Act 1996.

Applying that test, the tribunal identified live conflicts of evidence that would have to be resolved later, including whether the registered manager, Ms Sinead Clancy, knew about the alleged disclosures when she decided to dismiss the claimant, whether the alleged gross misconduct occurred, and whether the resident's complaint was the real reason for dismissal. Because those disputes could not be resolved on the interim relief material, the tribunal could not conclude that the claimant had a pretty good chance of success on her section 103A claim.

The application for interim relief was therefore dismissed. The tribunal made no findings on the merits of the underlying unfair dismissal claim, and it noted that the substantive claims had been listed for the full main hearing.