Maaly Nassar v Elsevier Limited — 2026

Maaly Nassar applied for interim relief in connection with her claim that the reason or principal reason for her dismissal by Elsevier Limited was that she had made protected disclosures. Applying s.129 ERA 1996, the Tribunal considered whether she had a "pretty good chance" of establishing the necessary elements at the final hearing, a threshold described as significantly higher than the balance of probabilities. No formal findings of fact were made.

Elsevier Limited said that the dismissal resulted from redundancy during the integration of SciBite into its business. On the material available, the Tribunal noted that the proposed reorganisation had been prepared in November and December 2025, that both Data Scientist positions were to be removed, including one that had been vacant since August 2025, and that the process was said to have involved HR support, consultation and the respondent's redundancy procedures. The Tribunal was not persuaded that Nassar was likely to establish at the final hearing that the redundancy process had been fabricated.

Because that threshold was not met, the Tribunal did not proceed to assess whether the seven alleged disclosures satisfied the protected-disclosure requirements. It refused the application for interim relief while expressly leaving the substantive claim, including the asserted reason or principal reason for dismissal, for determination at the final hearing. No monetary remedy was awarded.