Case 6029769/2025 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Respondent — 2025
- Case reference
- 6029769/2025
- Decision date
- 6 August 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Mr
Parties
1 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant applied for interim relief after being summarily dismissed during his probationary period following sickness absence. He alleged that the dismissal was because he had made protected disclosures about the safety of the vehicle he was required to drive, particularly dirty or stained windows affecting visibility.
The tribunal found that the claimant was likely to establish that his vehicle-safety disclosures were qualifying and protected disclosures. It did not consider him likely to establish a separate alleged disclosure about workload as a qualifying disclosure.
Applying the interim relief test, the tribunal concluded that the claimant had not shown a pretty good chance of proving at a full hearing that the protected disclosures were the principal reason for dismissal. The application for interim relief was therefore dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | The judgment dismisses the claimant's application for interim relief in a claim alleging dismissal for protected disclosures. It does not determine the final merits of the underlying complaint. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
5 references- s.129 Employment Rights Act 1996
- Taplin v C Shippam Ltd [1978] ICR 1068
- s.43B Employment Rights Act 1996
- Western Union Payment Services UK Ltd v Anastasiou UKEAT/0135/13/LA
- s.103A Employment Rights Act 1996
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.