Mr. A. Naumov v Fil Investment Management Limited — 2025

This was a hearing of the Claimant's application for interim relief under s.128 Employment Rights Act 1996, following the termination of his employment with the Respondent on 22 August 2025 for some other substantial reason. The Claimant, who appeared in person, contended that the principal reason for his dismissal was that he had made protected disclosures, and sought interim relief on the basis that his s.103A ERA claim was likely to succeed at full hearing. The Respondent, represented by counsel, submitted that the matters raised by the Claimant were operational in nature, did not identify a breach of a legal requirement, and that there was no causal link between the alleged disclosures and the dismissal, which was said to result from an irretrievable breakdown of the working relationship.

Employment Judge Sudra, sitting alone, conducted a summary assessment on the untested material before the Tribunal. The Judge directed himself by reference to the authorities on the meaning of 'likely' in s.129 ERA, including Taplin v C Shippam Ltd, Ministry of Justice v Sarfraz, Parsons v Airplus, and Dandpat v University of Bath, noting that the threshold is a 'pretty good chance of success', something nearer to certainty than mere probability, and that the hurdle is deliberately set high because interim relief obliges a respondent to continue paying the claimant pending final determination.

The Judge concluded that the Claimant had not satisfied that burden and had not demonstrated, at this early stage, that his protected disclosure dismissal claim was nearer to certainty than a possibility. The application for interim relief was accordingly refused. The Judge expressly made no findings of fact, and the substantive claims (which are to be joined with the Claimant's earlier claim 6010832/2024) remain to be determined at a full hearing.