Case 6001387/2026 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D Lee v Ford Retail Limited t/a TrustFord FULL WRITTEN — 2026
- Case reference
- 6001387/2026
- Decision date
- 11 March 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Deeley
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D Lee
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal considered the claimant's application for interim relief in relation to an alleged protected disclosure dismissal claim. It made a broad assessment on the material available and stated that it was not making findings of fact for the substantive claim.
The Tribunal concluded that, although the claimant had disclosed information that he reasonably believed showed a breach of a legal obligation, he did not reasonably believe that the disclosure was in the public interest. It also concluded that, even if protected disclosures had been made, it was not likely or a pretty good chance that the claimant would establish that the reason or principal reason for dismissal was those disclosures.
The application for interim relief was rejected. The judgment did not determine the claimant's separate disability discrimination complaints in another Tribunal claim and did not make any monetary award.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | The decision rejected an application for interim relief under sections 128 and 129 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. It did not finally determine the underlying whistleblowing dismissal complaint. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
10 references- s128 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s129 Employment Rights Act 1996
- s43B Employment Rights Act 1996
- s103A Employment Rights Act 1996
- Taplin v C Shipham Ltd [1978] IRLR 450
- Ministry of Justice v Sarfraz UK EAT/0578/10
- London City Airport Ltd v Chacko [2013] IRLR 610
- Dr C Hancock v Mr M Ter-Berg and NHS England Midlands and East UKEAT/0138/19/BA
- likely to succeed
- pretty good chance
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.