Mr Ashley South v World of Books Group Limited — 2025

This was a reserved judgment on the claimant's application for interim relief. Mr South had been employed by World of Books Group Limited from 17 March 2025 as Health Safety and Facilities Manager at its Coventry warehouse. He resigned with notice on 13 June 2025, and his employment ended on 13 July 2025. His claim form pleaded constructive unfair dismissal and said he had been unfairly dismissed because he made protected disclosures. He also sought to amend the case shortly before the hearing to add a section 100(1)(a) ERA 1996 health and safety dismissal basis, but the tribunal refused the amendment to the interim relief application and did not finally determine the separate amendment to the claim.

The tribunal set out the interim relief test under section 129(1) ERA 1996 and referred to Taplin v Shippam, Dandpat, Ministry of Justice v Sarfraz, Simply Smile Manor House, Steer v Stormsure and Hall v Paragon Finance. It explained that 'likely' means a pretty good chance of success and requires a broad, summary assessment rather than a final merits decision. It also summarised constructive dismissal principles under section 95 ERA 1996, Western Excavating, Malik, Omilaju and Kaur, and the reason-for-dismissal analysis under section 103A ERA 1996 and Kong. For the interim hearing, the respondent did not challenge that the claimant was likely to establish that he had made protected disclosures.

On the alleged breaches of contract, the tribunal did not think the claimant was likely to prove that Mr Fisher made the alleged comments or that his safety-control spreadsheet had been reversed without discussion or consultation. It did, however, find that the claimant had a pretty good chance of establishing that Mr Archer sought a second opinion from Intexion on whether the contractor's bespoke lifting equipment needed LOLER certification or inspection, without the claimant first indicating uncertainty about the legal requirements. It did not accept that the claimant was likely to establish deliberate disruption by Mr Bernath or Ms Ergun, or that Mr Bell failed to act on the 11 June 2025 disclosure.

On causation, the tribunal held that even if the Mr Archer issue were proved, the claimant was likely to show only that it arose in the context of his disclosure, not that the disclosure was the sole or principal reason for the conduct. It also relied on contemporaneous comments from Mr Archer supporting the claimant's safety concerns. The application for interim relief was refused and no continuation order or monetary award was made.