Case 6012309/2025 · Employment Tribunal
For the v In person Mr R Khalivov, solicitor — 2025
- Case reference
- 6012309/2025
- Decision date
- 7 July 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge S Moore
Parties
2 namedClaimant
For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was an application for interim relief under s.128 Employment Rights Act 1996, brought on the basis that the reason or principal reason for dismissal was that the Claimant made protected disclosures. The tribunal found that the effective date of termination was 3 April 2025, when the Respondent sent an email summarily dismissing him, so the application presented on 10 April 2025 was in time. The earlier WhatsApp exchange of 20 March 2025 was treated as having been superseded by the later summary dismissal.
Applying the interim relief test, the tribunal adopted the summary assessment required by Taplin, Sarfraz and Chacko and considered whether the Claimant had a pretty good chance of succeeding at the full hearing. It relied on a partial transcript of a meeting on 22 February 2025 and a letter from the Claimant dated 3 April 2025. Those materials were found likely to contain disclosures with sufficient factual content about matters including use of workers on visit visas, unlicensed practice, record-keeping for doctors, cash-in-hand payments, pension compliance, and use of a personal account for business payments.
The tribunal considered it likely that those disclosures were made in the public interest and that the Respondent dismissed the Claimant because he had made them, rather than for the misconduct allegations first raised in the 3 April 2025 dismissal email. It noted there was no evidence before it to support those allegations and that the timing of the dismissal followed shortly after the Claimant’s 3 April 2025 email. On that broad assessment, the application for interim relief succeeded.
As a remedy, the tribunal ordered continuation of the Claimant’s contract of employment under s.130 ERA 1996. It recorded that the Respondent was not prepared to reinstate or re-engage him. The parties agreed that the Claimant’s monthly pay was £2,676 gross and £2,180.36 net, and that he had not been paid for April and May 2025. The tribunal ordered payment of £4,360.72 net for those two months within 14 days, and said he was entitled to ongoing monthly net pay of £2,180.36 from June 2025 onwards.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | Interim relief application under s.128 ERA 1996 on the basis that the dismissal was because of protected disclosures; the tribunal did not finally determine the underlying whistleblowing complaint. | Upheld | — | £4,361 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £4,361
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
10 references- s.128(2) ERA 1996
- Taplin v C Shippam Ltd: pretty good chance of success
- Ministry of Justice v Sarfraz
- London City Airport Ltd v Chacko
- Cavendish Munro Professional Risks Management Ltd v Geduld
- Kilraine v Wandsworth LBC
- s.43A ERA 1996
- s.43B ERA 1996
- s.43C ERA 1996
- s.130 ERA 1996
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.