Ms S Messi v Change Grow Live — 2024

The claimant applied for interim relief after presenting an ET1 alleging unfair dismissal for making protected disclosures to public bodies and the police, and detriment connected with union membership. The tribunal dismissed the application for interim relief. It stressed that it was carrying out an expeditious summary assessment and was not making final findings of fact on the substantive claims.

The tribunal considered the claimant's 2 May 2024 email to the ICO, the Bristol Employment Tribunal and others, with attached screenshots of documents from the respondent's SharePoint. On the material before it, the tribunal considered it was not likely that the claimant would establish that she had first made an oral protected disclosure to the employer. It considered that the circumstances appeared closely akin to the Bolton School example of an employee using improper means to obtain material, and concluded that the claimant was not likely to establish that the 2 May 2024 disclosure was a protected disclosure or that she reasonably believed it was made in the public interest.

For disclosures to persons other than the employer, the tribunal noted that the ICO and HSE were prescribed persons but the Employment Tribunal and Equality and Human Rights Commission were not. It found no material suggesting the claimant reasonably believed she would suffer detriment if she disclosed to the employer, that relevant evidence would be concealed or destroyed, or that she had previously made a substantially similar disclosure. It also considered that the external disclosure appeared to breach contractual confidentiality obligations and did not comply with the respondent's whistleblowing and data protection procedures.

The tribunal also considered an interim relief argument based on dismissal for trade union membership or use of trade union services. It found no evidence of a certificate under section 161(3) TULR(C)A 1992 and concluded that a trade union membership dismissal claim did not appear likely to succeed. On reason for dismissal, the tribunal considered the investigation report, disciplinary outcome letter and witness statement gave the appearance of a cogent and well-evidenced dismissal for gross misconduct relating to unauthorised access to confidential and sensitive material and conduct destroying trust and confidence, with no compelling material pointing to another reason.

The tribunal ordered the claimant to pay the respondent's costs of the interim relief application in an amount to be assessed. It found that the application was vexatious and wholly without merit, while noting that the amount of costs would be determined at a separate hearing which would also consider the claimant's means.