Case 6022337/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr P Craete v Aniara Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 6022337/2024
- Decision date
- 7 May 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Reid Representation
- Venue
- East London Hearing Centre
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr P Craete
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr P Craete applied for interim relief in support of an automatic unfair dismissal claim under s.103A ERA 1996, relying on two alleged protected disclosures: a complaint on 22 November 2024 about pest problems in staff areas at the ABBA Voyage Arena, and a complaint on 5 December 2024 about the stairs to the control room. The tribunal treated the hearing as a summary assessment under ss.128-129 ERA 1996 and said the question was whether it was likely that the final tribunal would find the reason or principal reason for dismissal was one or both disclosures.
The tribunal held that disclosure 1 was likely to be a protected disclosure. It concerned rats and cockroaches in staff areas, and because the venue was a high-profile public venue with public and staff safety obligations, the issue could move from staff areas into public areas. On that basis, the tribunal accepted that the claimant likely had a reasonable belief that he was making the disclosure in the public interest.
Disclosure 2 was treated differently. The complaint about slippery stairs to the control room was found to concern a staff-only area and, at most, a personal mobility issue for the claimant and a hypothetical future employee with similar mobility difficulties. The tribunal was not satisfied that the claimant genuinely and reasonably believed disclosure 2 was made in the public interest.
The application still failed because the tribunal was not likely to find that disclosure 1 was the reason or principal reason for dismissal. It found the respondent was already dealing with the pest issue openly, had responded promptly to disclosure 1, and had independent capability concerns based on the claimant's knee injury and mobility. The tribunal relied on the occupational health report of 15 November 2024, the claimant's own email of 10 December 2024 saying the injury could affect mobility for at least 12 months and might require surgery, and the role's requirement to attend incidents in person. Interim relief was therefore dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | Interim relief application under s.128(1) ERA 1996 was dismissed; the tribunal did not finally determine the merits of the underlying s.103A claim. Disclosure 1 was likely protected, disclosure 2 was not, but the tribunal was not likely to find that disclosure 1 was the reason or principal reason for dismissal. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
13 references- s.128(1) ERA 1996
- s.129 ERA 1996
- s.103A ERA 1996
- s.43B(1)(b) ERA 1996
- Raja v SS for Justice summary assessment approach
- Taplin v C Shippam Ltd
- Dandpat v University of Bath
- London City Airport v Chacko
- Ministry of Justice v Sarfraz
- Kilraine v LB Wandsworth
- Babula v Waltham Forest College
- Chesterton Global Ltd v Nurmohamed
- Dobbie v Felton
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.