ETZ 4(WR) IN THE EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNAL (SCOTLAND) AT EDINBURGH Judgment of the Employment Tribunal in Application for Interim Relief in Case No: 8000219/2024, Following Interim Relief Hearing Held at Edinburgh on the th of March 2024 Employment Judge J G d’Inverno Ms Sandra Messi v User Testing Limited — 2024

The tribunal heard the claimant's application for interim relief by CVP on 19 March 2024. It proceeded under rule 95 of the Employment Tribunal (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013, heard submissions only, and did not receive oral evidence. The issue was whether it appeared likely, for the purposes of sections 128 and 129 ERA 1996, that the claimant would succeed at a final hearing in showing that the principal reason for dismissal was that she had made a protected disclosure within section 103A ERA 1996.

The claimant clarified that she relied only on two alleged disclosures: an email to the Information Commissioner's Office timed at 3.58 pm on 27 February 2024, and an email to the Solicitors Regulatory Authority timed at 14:20 on 28 February 2024. The tribunal noted that the dismissal decision was taken shortly after the probation review meeting on 28 February 2024, before the 28 February ICO email was sent, and that there was nothing in the material before it showing that the 27 February communications had been brought to the attention of the decision-maker before dismissal.

Applying the summary interim-relief test and the authorities cited by the parties, including Taplin v Shippam Limited and Ministry of Justice v Sarfraz, the tribunal found the position was not sufficiently clear cut to conclude that the claimant had a pretty good chance of establishing that either alleged disclosure was a qualifying or protected disclosure, or that it was the principal reason for dismissal. It therefore refused the application for interim relief. No monetary award or continuation order was made.