Ms C Vrancx v Kelvin Hughes Ltd — 2024

The tribunal heard Ms C Vrancx's application for interim relief on 29 August 2024, sitting alone before Employment Judge Quill. The application was based on an allegation that her dismissal was automatically unfair under s.103A ERA 1996 because she had made protected disclosures. The judge applied the interim relief test in s.129(1) ERA 1996 and the 'pretty good chance' approach from Taplin v C Shipham Ltd, and made clear that the hearing was not a final determination of the underlying claim.

The judge accepted that the claimant had a pretty good chance of showing that several of the matters she relied on were protected disclosures. Those included a 1 May 2024 meeting with the respondent's compliance and legal officer about security notices and subcontractors, a mid-May email to her line manager about alleged breaches of industry security notice requirements, and a 17 May 2024 email alleging breach of export legislation. The reasons also record the tribunal's discussion of the statutory definition of protected disclosure, including s.43B(1) ERA 1996 and the public interest test discussed in Chesterton Global Ltd v Nurmohamed.

The application failed because the judge was not satisfied that the claimant had a pretty good chance of showing that any protected disclosure was the principal reason for dismissal. The respondent relied on material said to pre-date the disclosures, including an 10 April 2024 email referring to proposed headcount reductions and a 1 May 2024 email with a restructure attachment naming the claimant, as well as evidence that another senior buyer was also placed at risk around the same time. The judge also referred to Kuzel v Roche Products Ltd, Royal Mail Group Ltd v Jhuti, Murray v Foyle Meats Ltd, and Kellog Brown and Root (UK) Ltd v Fitton & Ewer in explaining the approach to reason for dismissal and alleged redundancy. The tribunal therefore refused interim relief and did not make any monetary award.