Mr Abdul Atkir Khan v Home Office — 2026

Mr Abdul Atkir Khan applied for interim relief under s.128 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, relying at the hearing on his case that the Home Office had automatically unfairly dismissed him for making a protected disclosure. He did not rely at the hearing on his allegations concerning health and safety activities under s.100 ERA or trade union activities under s.152 TULRCA, and the tribunal did not consider them.

Mr Khan relied on an email sent on 27 March 2025 about tap pressure and hygiene at 2 Ruskin Square, in which he referred to work and safety laws. For the purposes of the interim application, and without making findings of fact, the tribunal took his case at its highest and proceeded on the basis that it was arguable that the email was a protected disclosure.

The tribunal found that the evidence did not give Mr Khan a pretty good chance of showing at a final hearing that the disclosure was the principal reason for his dismissal rather than poor performance. The disclosure was made about one year before the dismissal and about eight months before the informal performance process began. The email chain showed that his manager, Gillian Wood, supported him in raising the issue. The performance concerns were extensive, long-running, supported by substantial documents and considered by different people at different stages.

Mr Khan had not mentioned the disclosure during the capability hearings, in any of his three internal appeals or in his original tribunal claim. He first raised it in his interim relief amendment application on 21 April 2026, after his employment had ended. The tribunal also found that his assertion that scrutiny increased after the disclosure was not supported by contemporaneous documents.

Applying the higher interim relief threshold, the tribunal held that Mr Khan had not shown that it was likely that a final tribunal would find he was dismissed for the alleged automatically unfair reason. His application for interim relief was refused. The tribunal made no final determination of the underlying claim and recorded no monetary award.