Miss S Messi v Royal College of Psychiatrists — 2025

This was a hearing of the claimant's application for interim relief under sections 128-132 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The claimant said she was disabled, had asked for workplace adjustments, and relied on three emails sent on 22 and 24 January 2025 about the consent form for a third-party workplace assessment, the absence of equipment, and waiting for reasonable adjustments. The tribunal reminded the parties that the hearing was a summary exercise and that no findings of fact were being made.

The tribunal held that the claimant was not likely to succeed in showing that she had an employment contract with the respondent. On the material before it, the engagement looked like a short-term agency arrangement: the respondent asked the agency to find a worker, the claimant was recruited by the agency, payment was made through Liquid Gold on behalf of the agency, and there was no basis to imply a direct contract between the claimant and the respondent. That point alone was enough to refuse interim relief.

If wrong on employment status, the tribunal went on to consider the disclosures and causation. It accepted that the 22 January emails contained enough information to amount to disclosures, but found no pretty good chance that the claimant could show a reasonable belief that signing the consent form, or the absence of equipment at that stage, showed a breach of the duty to make reasonable adjustments or any endangerment to health and safety. The tribunal said the respondent had acted promptly by arranging an assessment and that it was too soon to say there had been a failure to comply.

The tribunal also found that the claimant had not shown a pretty good chance of establishing that the disclosures were made in the public interest, because the material before it pointed to a dispute about her own rights rather than a wider public interest. It considered that the 24 January email, read on its face, suggested the respondent was attempting to arrange an assessment rather than failing to comply. On causation, the tribunal held that the claimant would struggle to show that the disclosures were the sole or principal reason for the 24 January termination, given the respondent's reliance on her refusal to cooperate with the assessment, the need for the work to start quickly, and concerns about the way she raised her complaints. The application for interim relief was therefore refused.