In person v Respondent — 2024

This was an application for interim relief in a claim presented as automatic unfair dismissal for protected disclosures under s.103A ERA 1996. The claimant said he had made disclosures about asbestos concerns in a property, incorrect PPE for use with mould spray, and bullying to HR. The respondent said the dismissal was for performance and conduct reasons, including documented performance reviews and an incident on 13 June 2024 involving inappropriate and offensive comments to a colleague.

The tribunal set out the statutory test under ss.128 and 129 ERA 1996 and applied the authorities it cited, including London City Airport Ltd v Chack, Ryb v Nomura International Plc, Taplin v C Shippam Ltd, and Ministry of Justice v Sarfraz. It recorded that interim relief requires a broad assessment on the material available and that the claimant must show more than reasonable prospects, described as a "pretty good chance" of success, that the reason or principal reason for dismissal was a protected disclosure. The tribunal also referred to Kilraine v LB Wandsworth and Cavendish Munro v Geduld on the need for a disclosure of information rather than mere allegations.

On that basis, the tribunal was not persuaded that the claimant had shown that the matters relied on were qualifying disclosures, or that they were protected disclosures within the meaning of the legislation. It also found that, even if the claimant could rely on any of the matters as qualifying disclosures, he had not shown a likely causal link between those disclosures and his dismissal in light of the respondent's evidence about ongoing performance and conduct issues.

The application for interim relief was therefore dismissed. The judgment did not make findings on the final merits of the underlying whistleblowing dismissal claim, and it did not record any monetary award.