In person For the v Mr Chadwick, Consultant — 2025

Miss Sandra Messi worked for Nomad Foods Europe Limited from 26 October 2024 to 14 January 2025 on a fixed-term arrangement due to end on 15 January 2025. She had issued proceedings on 15 January 2025 alleging race discrimination, disability discrimination, sex discrimination, detriment for making protected disclosures, breach of contract and holiday pay, but a Regional Employment Judge had already rejected all claims except the automatic unfair dismissal / interim relief issue because there was no Early Conciliation Certificate. This hearing on 14 March 2025 therefore concerned only her application for interim relief in relation to alleged dismissal for protected disclosure.

The tribunal set out the statutory framework in sections 128 and 129 ERA 1996 and the authorities governing interim relief, including Taplin v Shippam Limited, Dandpat v University of Bath, London City Airport v Chacko, Al-Qasimi v Robinson and Ministry of Justice v Sarfraz. It also recorded that, in a whistleblowing interim relief application, the claimant must show a likely case on each element, including that there was a disclosure of information, that it tended to show a matter within section 43B ERA 1996, that she reasonably believed the disclosure was in the public interest, and that the disclosures were the reason or principal reason for dismissal.

The judge found that the disclosure relied on at 7:16 pm on 7 January 2025 came after Miss Messi had already been told at 3:04 pm that day that her contract would not be renewed and would end on 15 January 2025, so it could not have been the reason for dismissal. The tribunal also noted emails from 12 December 2024 showing a management decision that five of eight agency workers would be renewed and three, including Miss Messi, would not, which suggested the non-renewal decision had been made earlier. When Miss Messi then relied on an email of 12 November 2024, the judge held that it was a request to work from home as a reasonable adjustment because of sciatica, not a protected disclosure. On that basis the interim relief application failed, the judge said the automatic unfair dismissal claim was not likely to succeed and was very likely to fail, no costs order was made on the day, and the case was listed for a further public preliminary hearing to deal with costs and strikeout applications.