- IN PERSON FOR THE v - Ms R Bastin — 2025

This was an interim relief hearing, held on 1 October 2025, at which Employment Judge Cadney sat alone and heard no oral evidence. The tribunal explained that, under s128 and s129 ERA 1996, it could grant interim relief only if it considered it likely that the final tribunal would find the claimant had been automatically unfairly dismissed under s103A ERA 1996. The judgment applied the "good chance" meaning of "likely" from Ministry of Justice v Sarfraz.

The claimant relied on a series of alleged protected disclosures, including an email of 28 January 2025 and later disclosures said to have been made in April to June 2025, in June 2025, on 27 June and 1 July 2025 to external bodies, and on 6 August 2025 to the ICO. The tribunal said there was at least a significant issue as to whether the 28 January email was a qualifying disclosure, because the email in the bundle concerned equipment funded by Access to Work and complaints that staff felt they were "walking on eggshells" around Sharon, but did not expressly refer to patient safety. As to the other alleged disclosures, the tribunal said it did not have the material necessary to assess them, except for the 6 August 2025 "Whistleblower Report".

The tribunal treated the 6 August 2025 report as raising serious allegations which, subject to reasonable belief, appeared on their face likely to contain some protected disclosures. However, because the respondent disputed that the claimant had a reasonable belief and relied on the context in which the report was made during a disciplinary process, the tribunal concluded there was a genuine factual dispute that could only be resolved at a final hearing. It therefore could not conclude that it was likely the final tribunal would find any protected disclosure had been made.

The tribunal also considered the dismissal material. The claimant had been invited to a disciplinary hearing on 13 June 2025, the hearing took place on 26 June 2025, and an external Peninsula consultant’s report dated 5 August 2025 upheld a number of allegations as misconduct and/or serious misconduct, recommending a final written warning but noting dismissal would not be unlawful. The respondent paused the process for the grievance investigation, raised further disciplinary issues by letter of 19 August 2025, and dismissed the claimant by letter of 22 August 2025, relying on misconduct/serious misconduct, unsatisfactory explanations, short service, and a breakdown of trust and confidence. The tribunal held that the respondent’s case was supported by documentary evidence and that the outcome turned on disputed facts and inferences for the final hearing tribunal. It therefore refused interim relief and dismissed the application.