Case 6007487/2025 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Respondent — 2025
- Case reference
- 6007487/2025
- Decision date
- 23 April 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Andrews Date
Parties
1 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant applied for interim relief, saying he had been an employee of the respondent and had been dismissed because he made protected disclosures to The Pensions Regulator, HMRC, and the respondent's HR department. The respondent disputed employee status, disputed that some alleged communications were protected disclosures, and said the termination was for poor performance and disputed invoices.
The tribunal was not persuaded at this stage that the claim was likely to succeed. It found that there were significant factual disputes about employee status and the reason for termination, including disputed knowledge of the alleged disclosure and matters referred to in the termination letter. Those issues required careful consideration of oral and documentary evidence, so the application for interim relief was refused.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | The tribunal refused the claimant's application for interim relief in a protected disclosure automatic unfair dismissal claim. The substantive claim was not finally determined. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
7 references- section 128(1) Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 103A Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 129(1) Employment Rights Act 1996
- Taplin v Shippam Ltd pretty good chance of success
- Dandpat v The University of Bath
- Ministry of Justice v Sarfaz
- rule 94 Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2024
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.