M. Bunglawala v Centrica plc — 2026

M. Bunglawala’s application for interim relief against Centrica plc failed. He had worked as a Senior Data Analyst from 1 July 2014 until his dismissal on 3 June 2026 for the alleged reason of redundancy. He applied for interim relief on 10 June 2026, asserting that protected disclosures were the sole or principal reason for his dismissal.

The tribunal heard the application on 10 July 2026 without oral evidence. It considered documents, submissions and a signed witness statement from Mr Tourmez, the dismissing officer. Those materials had not been tested, and the judge expressly described the accounts of the underlying events as summaries of the parties’ submissions rather than findings of fact.

The claimant focused on three alleged disclosures and argued that the redundancy was a sham. Centrica disputed whether the disclosures qualified for protection and relied on documents which it said showed a genuine redundancy process considered over a relatively long period for unrelated reasons. The tribunal could not determine whether there was a redundancy situation at this hearing. It found that both parties had arguable cases requiring resolution at a final hearing.

The claimant could point to documentary evidence of Mr Tourmez’s awareness of only one alleged disclosure. That evidence was not determinative: the reference preceded dismissal by some time, and Centrica argued that Mr Tourmez was unlikely to remember it or be influenced by it. The judge could not infer his motivation or the absence of a genuine redundancy situation without hearing his evidence.

Applying the heightened interim relief test, the tribunal could not conclude that the claimant had a pretty good chance of establishing either that the alleged disclosures satisfied all the requirements of s.43B ERA 1996 or that they were the sole or principal reason for dismissal under s.103A. Considering the other two alleged disclosures would not have changed the conclusion on the reason for dismissal. Interim relief was refused; the underlying claim was not finally decided, and no monetary award was recorded.