Case 6031159/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Andrejs Mizujevs v Tesco Stores Ltd — 2026
- Case reference
- 6031159/2025
- Decision date
- 8 January 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Alliott Representation
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Andrejs Mizujevs
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal considered the claimant's application for interim relief following his summary dismissal by Tesco Stores Limited. The claimant advanced automatically unfair dismissal allegations based on health and safety activities, protected disclosures, and a prohibited list or blacklist allegation.
The tribunal stated that it was not making findings of fact and applied the interim relief threshold of whether the claimant had a pretty good chance of success. It found that the claimant did not have a pretty good chance of establishing that he had been designated under section 100(1)(a), that the respondent had or used a prohibited list or acted on information from one, or that any protected disclosure was the reason for dismissal.
The application for interim relief was therefore dismissed. No remedy was awarded in this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Interim relief application dismissed in relation to automatically unfair dismissal alleged under section 100(1)(a) Employment Rights Act 1996; the tribunal did not make final findings on the substantive claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | Interim relief application dismissed in relation to automatically unfair dismissal alleged under section 103A Employment Rights Act 1996; the tribunal did not make final findings on whether protected disclosures were made. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Trade union | Interim relief application dismissed in relation to the prohibited list or blacklist allegation under section 104F Employment Rights Act 1996; the tribunal did not make final findings on the substantive claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
10 references- section 128 Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 129(1) Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 100(1)(a) Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 43B Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 103A Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 104F Employment Rights Act 1996
- regulation 3 Employment Relations 1999 (Blacklists) Regulations 2010
- London City Airport Limited v Chacko [2013] IRLR 610 EAT
- Taplin v C Shippam Limited [1978] ICR 1068 EAT
- pretty good chance of success
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.