Mr D Salavei v Amazon Web Services EMA SARL, UK Branch — 2025

The claimant applied for interim relief in relation to his second claim, initially relying on both s.104 and s.103A Employment Rights Act 1996. At the hearing he accepted that interim relief is not available under s.104 and withdrew that part of the application, leaving only the whistleblowing dismissal allegation under s.103A for summary consideration.

The tribunal applied the interim relief test under s.129(1) ERA 1996 and the authorities cited in the respondent's skeleton, including the requirement that the claimant show a "pretty good chance" of success. It accepted that some of the matters relied on could be arguable protected disclosures, including the first tribunal claim and the claimant's formal grievance, but said the public interest issue was not clearly obvious and would need to be resolved at a final hearing.

On causation, the tribunal was not satisfied that it was likely the principal reason for dismissal was protected disclosures. It found there was substantial evidence supporting the respondent's case that the dismissal arose from ill-health capability, including a detailed capability process and attempts to engage the claimant. The medical evidence before the tribunal did not show a clear near-term return to work.

The tribunal also said the documents it saw did not provide clear evidence of deliberate retaliation, fabricated evidence, withholding of policies, misrepresentation, or ignoring of medical evidence. It therefore refused interim relief, while noting that the claimant could still pursue those points at the final hearing.