Case 6002047/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Festus Olatoye v Barclays Execution Services Ltd — 2025
- Case reference
- 6002047/2025
- Decision date
- 2 June 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Andrew Clarke
- Venue
- Cambridge
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Festus Olatoye
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal considered the claimant's application for interim relief, which was based on his contention that he had been dismissed because he made a protected disclosure. The claimant also had pleaded race and disability discrimination, wrongful dismissal and breach of contract claims, but the judgment addressed the interim relief application only.
The tribunal was not satisfied that the claimant was likely to establish that he had made a protected disclosure. It noted uncertainty about which document contained the alleged disclosure, concern that the materials did not identify a relevant legal obligation or regulatory breach, and concern that the case for public interest was tenuous.
The tribunal also found, on a provisional review of the documents, that the materials did not show the required causal link between any disclosure and dismissal. The application for interim relief therefore failed and was dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | The judgment dismissed the claimant's application for interim relief based on an automatic unfair dismissal claim said to arise from making a protected disclosure. It did not finally determine the underlying claim or the other pleaded claims. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- s.43(B)(1)(b) Employment Rights Act 1996
- Taplin v C Shipman Ltd [1978] ICR 1068
- pretty good chance of success
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.