Mr M Burch v Ashford Borough Council — 2025

The claimant, Mr M Burch, applied for interim relief in relation to a claim of automatically unfair dismissal under s.103A ERA 1996. Employment Judge Leith set out the interim relief test under s.129 ERA 1996 and the authorities on whether the claimant had a “pretty good chance of success” at final hearing. The judge also addressed whether the claimant was likely to be found to have been an employee of Ashford Borough Council, noting that the claimant had accepted he was engaged via a third party and that the documents showed engagement through Service Care Solutions and an umbrella company, Arch Finance Limited.

On status, the tribunal found that the claimant had no direct contractual nexus with the respondent and that there was no evidence of ambiguity in the relationship or of it having developed away from what had originally been intended. The engagement lasted slightly under a month. On that basis, the judge held that it was not likely the claimant would establish that he worked under a contract of employment with the council, which was sufficient to defeat the interim relief application.

The judge also considered the protected disclosure issues. The claimant said he had reported falsified evidence and inaccurate data to his line manager, Mr Ingram, and relied on an email sent to Mr Olugbodi on 3 July 2025 listing compliance concerns such as remedial actions, evidence capture, fault rectification, record keeping and audit issues. The tribunal accepted that it was likely the claimant believed wrongdoing had occurred, but held that the materials before it did not show what specific information had been disclosed to Mr Ingram, and that the 3 July email’s reference to “ambiguity” around compliance did not unambiguously amount to a protected disclosure on the face of it.

On causation, the tribunal treated the screenshot of the text exchange with Mr Ingram as likely genuine for the purposes of the interim relief hearing, but held that it did not make it likely that the claimant would succeed on the case that the principal reason for termination was protected disclosure. Mr Ingram was not the dismissing officer, there was no evidence that Mr Olugbodi knew of the exchange or of any specific disclosures to Mr Ingram, and there was a live factual dispute about performance and the reason given for termination on 4 July 2025. The application for interim relief was therefore dismissed.