Miss Michelle Riley v Refuge (a charity and a company limited by guarantee) — 2026

Miss Michelle Riley brought a claim against Refuge on 8 July 2026, while still employed, alleging detriments for making protected disclosures. She was dismissed on 20 July 2026 and wrote to the tribunal that day seeking interim relief in her existing claim, without mentioning unfair dismissal. An unfair dismissal claim was added without objection at the hearing on 17 August 2026. That claim was in time because fewer than three months had passed since dismissal.

The tribunal dismissed the interim relief application for lack of jurisdiction. Section 128 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 required an unfair dismissal claim to precede an application for interim relief. The application made on 20 July was invalid because no unfair dismissal claim had then been made. Any application made at the hearing would fall outside the seven-day deadline in section 128(2). The tribunal did not consider the merits of the application.

Refuge sought costs on the ground that the interim relief application had no reasonable prospects of success. Applying the test discussed in Madu v Loughborough College 2025 EAT 52, the tribunal considered whether Miss Riley ought to have appreciated the procedural problem on the information available at the time. It found no particular reason why she, as a litigant in person, should have known that she needed to submit a second claim form on or after dismissal. The test for a potential costs award was not met, and no costs order was made.