Case 6032709/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Ms F Mizzi v Denise Griffiths 24 September 2025 — 2025
- Case reference
- 6032709/2025
- Decision date
- 24 September 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Shepherd Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms F Mizzi
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant applied for interim relief on the basis that she had been dismissed for making a protected disclosure within the meaning of section 43B of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The tribunal considered the claim form, documents, witness statements and submissions, and noted that the underlying unfair dismissal claim under section 103A had not yet been finally determined.
The tribunal applied the interim relief threshold of whether the claimant had a pretty good chance of succeeding at the final hearing. It found clear factual disputes about whether there was a qualifying disclosure, whether it was in the public interest, whether the respondent knew of it at the time of dismissal, and what the reason for dismissal was. On the material before it, the tribunal could not conclude that it was likely the claimant would establish that the reason or principal reason for dismissal was a protected disclosure, so the interim relief application was refused.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | The judgment refused the claimant's application for interim relief in a section 103A protected disclosure dismissal claim; it did not determine the substantive unfair dismissal complaint. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
5 references- section 43B Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 128 Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 103A Employment Rights Act 1996
- pretty good chance of success
- Taplin v C Shipham Ltd 1978 ICR 1068
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.