In person For the v Respondent — 2025

Mr Z Zhang worked for LNRS Data Services Limited as a Senior Visual or UX Designer from 19 April 2022 until dismissal, which the respondent said was effective on 30 April 2025. He applied for interim relief on the basis that his dismissal was because he had made protected disclosures, chiefly about processing personal data, including health-related personal data, in the Philippines and alleged GDPR non-compliance. The tribunal assessed the application on untested documentary material and applied the statutory interim relief test under s.128 and s.129 ERA 1996, asking whether he had a "pretty good chance" of succeeding on the relevant whistleblowing dismissal elements.

The tribunal found that the claimant was likely to show protected disclosures made in June 2024 to Ms Mowbray and in his 11 September 2024 letter to Mr Kelsey about UK GDPR compliance and personal data being processed in the Philippines. It also accepted, for interim relief purposes, that he was likely to show a subjective belief in the alleged breaches and that this belief remained objectively reasonable notwithstanding the respondent's reassurance. It further held that the June and September disclosures were likely capable of being in the public interest. However, the tribunal was not satisfied that the later allegation of "Insufficient Client Data Protection" was itself a protected disclosure, because the information said to be disclosed was not sufficiently clear.

On causation, the tribunal accepted the respondent's case that a restructuring and redundancy process had been underway from late 2024 into 2025, that the claimant's role was identified as at risk in January 2025, consultation took place in March and April 2025, and dismissal was confirmed at the final consultation meeting on 15 April 2025. It found that the claimant had not shown a pretty good chance of proving that the redundancy was a sham or that the principal reason for dismissal was the making of protected disclosures. The application for interim relief was therefore refused. The tribunal also referred to Bombardier Aerospace v McConnell as support for the proposition that interim relief is not available where a genuine redundancy has removed the role, unless the redundancy process was fabricated or a sham.