Mr M Sheerin v Airvending Limited 24 September 2025 — 2025

Mr Sheerin applied for interim relief on the basis that his dismissal was for making a protected disclosure within the meaning of section 43B ERA 1996 and section 103A ERA 1996. Employment Judge Shepherd applied section 128 ERA 1996 and the approach in Taplin v C Shipham Ltd, asking whether it appeared likely that the claimant would succeed at the final hearing. The judge recorded that this required a broad assessment on untested material and not final findings of fact.

The claimant produced an email dated 1 August 2024 which he said was the protected disclosure. The tribunal was not satisfied it could determine, on the material before it, that the email was a qualifying disclosure without hearing substantive evidence. The judge noted that the respondent would say there was a factual dispute about whether the claimant had a reasonable belief that the disclosure was made in the public interest, and that the earlier case materials referred to issues predating the alleged disclosure, including performance concerns and adjustments to workload.

The tribunal also accepted the respondent's position that the dismissal had nothing to do with any alleged protected disclosure, as stated by the dismissing officer, David Goulden. The judge found that the dismissal letter did not show an unbroken chain of causation from disclosure to dismissal and that there appeared to be multiple issues leading to the disciplinary procedure, written warning and dismissal.

Because there were substantial unresolved factual disputes and the evidence had not been tested, the tribunal could not conclude that the claimant had a pretty good chance of succeeding at the final hearing on the contention that the sole or principal reason for dismissal was a protected disclosure. The application for interim relief was therefore refused, and no monetary award was made at this stage.