Ms M Urbaityte v Collection Pot Limited — 2024

This was the claimant’s application for interim relief in an automatic unfair dismissal claim said to arise from protected disclosures. Employment Judge Corrigan heard the application by video on 2 October 2024 and, applying the interim relief test under s129 Employment Rights Act 1996, refused the application. The reasons emphasise that the exercise was a summary assessment and not a final finding of fact on the underlying claim.

The tribunal found there was a pretty good chance that the claimant would succeed in showing that she made two similar public interest disclosures during her short employment. Those concerns related to possible data protection breaches in a new product feature allowing users to invite others using their email addresses, and to possible breaches of FCA know-your-customer requirements. The judge also considered that she had a pretty good chance of showing that, when she raised those issues, she reasonably believed there was a breach and that she was acting in the public interest.

On causation, the tribunal said the claimant may well be able to show that the disclosures were the principal reason for dismissal, noting that the dismissal appeared sudden, without warning, and outside the respondent’s probationary processes. However, the judge also recorded evidence of other concerns about the claimant’s work, including text messages and irritation about her response to a 12 September request, and said that this meant the tribunal could not conclude on this summary assessment that she had a pretty good chance of proving the disclosures were the principal reason for dismissal. The interim relief application was therefore refused.