In person For the v R Pal (litigation consultant) — 2024

Ms Ahmed was employed by Anglo Ltd as a workshop leader from 16 July 2024 on a temporary contract and was dismissed on 17 July 2024. She applied for interim relief on the basis that she had been automatically unfairly dismissed for making a protected disclosure. Her case was that on a student trip she told her manager that the students should have short periods of free time rather than one long period, which she said raised a safeguarding and health and safety issue. The respondent said the dismissal was for capability concerns, and the claimant had been offered reinstatement after her appeal was successful, which she refused on 9 August 2024.

The tribunal applied the interim relief approach in s.128 ERA 1996, including the need for a broad, expeditious summary assessment and a finding that the claimant had a pretty good chance of success at the final hearing. On the limited material before it, the tribunal accepted there may have been a dispute about the format of the Cambridge tour, but it was not persuaded that the claimant was likely to show that her statement amounted to a protected disclosure within s.43B ERA 1996, or that the respondent believed she had made one and dismissed her for that reason. The tribunal noted the absence of pre-dismissal communications referring to whistleblowing, the later nature of the claimant's safeguarding points, and documents indicating capability concerns. The application for interim relief was refused.