Ms X Zhang v Aztec Financial Services (UK) Limited — 2026

This was a summary interim relief application under section 128 ERA 1996. The Claimant, Ms X Zhang, had worked for Aztec Financial Services (UK) Limited from 6 March 2023 as a Systems Support Manager and had resigned with notice on 9 December 2025 while on gardening leave. She said she had been constructively dismissed and that the principal reason for dismissal was protected disclosures made in a Safecall report on 18 September 2025 and in an email on 8 December 2025. Employment Judge Yallop applied the interim relief threshold under section 129(1) ERA 1996, including the authorities on whether the Claimant had a 'pretty good chance' of succeeding, and proceeded on a summary basis without oral evidence.

The tribunal considered the alleged disclosures in the Safecall report and the later email separately. It found there was a pretty good chance that some parts of the Safecall report, including the password-sharing complaint and the complaint about going live without a compliance test, could amount to disclosures of information. It also considered that the 8 December 2025 email, which said Mr Szatkowski had been 'making stuff up without evidence' and was bullying her, was capable of being a disclosure. By contrast, it found the 're-invent the wheel' allegation and the general complaint that he had been 'challenging everything, attacking both her and her team, and offering no support at all' were unlikely to qualify because they lacked sufficient factual content and specificity.

The tribunal nevertheless concluded that the Claimant did not have a pretty good chance of showing that she had made protected disclosures. It said the password issue had already been resolved by the time it was raised in September, so it was unlikely that she believed in September that it tended to show a live failure to comply with GDPR. For the 8 December 2025 email, the tribunal accepted there was a pretty good chance that she believed it tended to show a relevant failure and that it was made in the public interest, but the public-interest element remained doubtful on the material before it because the contemporaneous documents suggested an isolated dispute between two colleagues and there was little reference to wider impact on others, despite one reference to the team being attacked.

Because the tribunal was not satisfied that there was a pretty good chance of establishing protected disclosures, it followed that there was not a pretty good chance of showing that any constructive dismissal was principally because of a protected disclosure. The application for interim relief was therefore dismissed. No financial remedy was awarded.