Mr P Ntui, legal representative For the v Respondent — 2025

The claimant resigned on 3 February 2025 and presented his first claim form on 6 February 2025, applying for interim relief on the basis that he had been unfairly constructively dismissed and that protected disclosures were a reason for that dismissal. The tribunal identified the relevant test under sections 128(1) and 129(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 as whether it appeared likely that the claimant would succeed on the underlying protected-disclosure dismissal complaint, applying the authorities it cited on the meaning of 'likely' in this context.

The claimant relied on two grievances said to amount to protected disclosures. The first, dated 16 October 2021, was found not to have a pretty good chance of being characterised as a protected disclosure: on its face it was treated as a personal complaint, with only a brief reference to the company’s predominant objective and a speculative link drawn by the claimant to access to the HARBOUR system and service users. The second grievance, dated 28 October 2024, was regarded as a slightly stronger argument but still not enough to meet the interim relief threshold; it was also treated as predominantly a complaint about the claimant’s own treatment, with no express reference to the Health and Social Care Act 2008 or the regulations said to be engaged.

The tribunal also held that the claimant did not have a pretty good chance of showing the necessary causal link between any protected disclosure and the alleged constructive dismissal. It noted the delay between the 2021 grievance and the resignation, and said that in relation to the 2024 grievance the claimant faced a logical difficulty because he had already experienced the treatment complained of before making that grievance. The application for interim relief therefore failed and was refused. No monetary remedy was awarded in this judgment.