Case 6021418/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Respondent v Heard at — 2025
- Case reference
- 6021418/2025
- Decision date
- 30 July 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Phil Allen
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Respondent
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, an LGV driver, resigned on 2 June 2025 and brought a claim alleging automatic unfair dismissal because he had made protected disclosures. He applied for interim relief. The alleged disclosures concerned use of an app on a personal phone, contact about work outside shifts or during rest periods, and changes to routes or vehicles.
The Tribunal applied the interim relief test and concluded that it did not appear likely that the final Tribunal would find that the principal reason for dismissal was that the claimant made one or more protected disclosures. The judge was not persuaded on the material available that the claimant was likely to show a reasonable belief that the disclosures were in the public interest, or that any fundamental breach of contract was because of protected disclosures rather than the respondent continuing to require the matters complained about.
The judge emphasised that the interim relief decision was brief, based on limited and untested evidence, and did not mean that the claimant would not succeed at a final hearing. The application for interim relief was refused.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | The judgment decided only the claimant's application for interim relief in an automatic unfair dismissal claim said to arise from protected disclosures. The Tribunal refused interim relief because it did not appear likely that the principal reason for dismissal would be found to be protected disclosures. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Constructive dismissal | The claimant had resigned and the Tribunal described the case as a constructive dismissal claim, but this interim relief judgment did not finally determine the substantive constructive dismissal claim. | Other | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The Tribunal described the complaint as automatic unfair dismissal under section 103A ERA 1996. The substantive complaint was not finally determined; only interim relief was refused. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
7 references- section 129 of the Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 103A of the Employment Rights Act 1996
- interim relief test: whether the claim is likely to succeed
- protected disclosure
- constructive dismissal
- fundamental breach of contract
- public interest
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.