Case 6002655/2025 · Employment Tribunal
represented herself For the v Respondent — 2025
- Case reference
- 6002655/2025
- Decision date
- 8 April 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hawksworth Appearances
- Venue
- Reading
Parties
1 namedClaimant
represented herself For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant was assigned by R3Vamp Ltd as an AP Analyst to London Business School from 20 January 2025 until 21 January 2025, when she was told that she was being withdrawn from the assignment. She presented her ET1 on 25 January 2025 and applied for interim relief on the basis that she had been unfairly dismissed for making protected disclosures contrary to section 103A ERA 1996. Judge Hawksworth applied the interim relief test under sections 128 and 129 ERA 1996, treating the question as whether the claimant had a pretty good chance of succeeding at the full hearing, and referred to Taplin, Dandpat, Wollenberg and London City Airport v Chacko.
The claimant said she made whistleblowing disclosures on 18 or 19 January 2025 to the ICO, EHRC, HSE and DWP, and a further disclosure on 20 January 2025 by forwarding an email requesting reasonable adjustments. The judge found that she had not given enough detail of what information she said she disclosed, what wrongdoing she said it showed, or why she believed the disclosures were in the public interest. The basis on which any disclosure would be protected under sections 43C to 43H ERA 1996 was also unclear, including whether the disclosures were made to her employer or to prescribed persons.
On causation, the respondent said the assignment ended because the claimant did not attend work on the first two days and could not be reached. The judge said that explanation was not undermined by the material before the tribunal, including the recording of the call with Mr Lilley. On that summary assessment, the tribunal held that the claimant had not shown a sufficiently high prospect of establishing qualifying and protected disclosures, or that any protected disclosure was the sole or principal reason for dismissal, so the interim relief application was refused. The tribunal noted that the respondent’s ET3 had been sent in time and that the next step would be processing of the response and the usual initial case management consideration.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | Interim relief application under sections 128 and 129 ERA 1996 was refused; the underlying section 103A whistleblowing unfair dismissal complaint was not finally determined. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
9 references- sections 128 and 129 ERA 1996
- section 103A ERA 1996
- sections 43A and 43B ERA 1996
- section 43C ERA 1996
- section 43F ERA 1996
- Taplin v C Shippam Limited
- Dandpat v University of Bath
- Wollenberg v Global Gaming Ventures (Leeds) Ltd
- London City Airport Ltd v Chacko
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.