Case 6011690/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mr P Allwright v Wells Fargo Bank National Association and 7 others — 2025
- Case reference
- 6011690/2025
- Decision date
- 21 May 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Joyce Representation
- Venue
- London Central
Parties
9 namedKey findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant brought a complaint of automatic unfair dismissal on whistleblowing grounds and applied for interim relief after being dismissed on the stated ground of redundancy. The tribunal considered the interim relief application on a submissions-only basis and identified that the central issue was whether the alleged protected disclosures were the reason or principal reason for dismissal.
The tribunal found that the claimant could succeed at a final hearing, but it was not able to conclude at this stage that he had a pretty good chance of doing so. The judge considered that the knowledge point depended on inferences about what Ms Mitchell knew before the redundancy business case was signed off, and that the documentary material provided objective support for the Second Redundancy Process.
The respondent's deposit order application was also denied. The tribunal held that although the claimant had not met the higher interim relief threshold, the claim did not have little reasonable prospect of success because issues of knowledge, causation, and the nature of the alleged disclosures required findings of fact at trial.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | The tribunal denied the claimant's application for interim relief in an automatic unfair dismissal claim on whistleblowing grounds. The substantive claim was not finally determined. | Other | — | — |
| Other | The respondent's application for a deposit order was denied. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
16 references- s.128 ERA 1996
- s.129 ERA 1996
- London City Airport Ltd v Chacko
- Hall v Paragon Finance Plc
- Taplin v C Shippam Ltd
- Ministry of Justice v Sarfraz
- Dandpat v The University of Bath
- Bombardier Aerospace/Short Brothers plc v Mc Connell
- s.43B ERA 1996
- s.103A ERA 1996
- Al Qasimi v Robinson
- Royal Mail Group Ltd v Jhuti
- Rule 39 Tribunal Rules of Procedure
- Sharma v New College Nottingham
- Hemdan v Ishmail
- Simpson v Air Business Ltd
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.