Ms Melike Yavuz v HCA International Ltd — 2025

Ms Yavuz applied for interim relief in support of an automatic unfair dismissal claim based on protected disclosures said to have been made on 21 March 2024 and 17 October 2024. The tribunal recorded the parties' competing accounts of her role in the respondent's flex pool, the transfer of AHUB into PSG, the redundancy process, and her case that she had been excluded from roles after her disclosures. The application was determined on documents and submissions only, with no oral evidence, under Rule 94 of the Employment Tribunal Rules 2024.

Employment Judge B Smith refused interim relief because the claimant did not show a 'pretty good chance' of proving that the reason, or principal reason, for dismissal was her protected disclosure. The judge held that the respondent had at least arguable, largely documented answers to the claimant's points, including the redundancy rationale, the flex-pool evidence in the payslips and emails, the chronology of consultations, the email retention policy point, and the absence of material showing a conspiracy or that the decision-maker knew of the disclosures. The judgment expressly states that no final findings of fact were made on the underlying merits.