Case 8000396/2026 · Employment Tribunal
ETZ 4(WR) IN THE EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNAL (SCOTLAND) Determination of the Tribunal in Case No: 8000396/2026 of Application for Interim Relief Heard at Edinburgh on the th of March 2026 Employment Judge J G d’Inverno Mr Dmitrii Amelin v HAD-FAB Limited — 2026
- Case reference
- 8000396/2026
- Decision date
- 9 March 2026
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Venue
- Edinburgh
Parties
2 namedClaimant
ETZ 4(WR) IN THE EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNAL (SCOTLAND) Determination of the Tribunal in Case No: 8000396/2026 of Application for Interim Relief Heard at Edinburgh on the th of March 2026 Employment Judge J G d’Inverno Mr Dmitrii Amelin
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant applied for interim relief pending final determination of a complaint that he had been automatically unfairly dismissed under section 103A of the Employment Rights Act 1996 for making protected disclosures. The tribunal heard submissions only and did not receive oral or written witness evidence or make findings in fact.
The tribunal recorded that the claimant relied on three alleged protected disclosures and that the respondent disputed whether they qualified for protection and whether they were the reason for dismissal. The respondent's position was that the dismissal related to performance and was unconnected with the alleged disclosures.
The tribunal accepted that the claimant's case, taken at its highest, was arguable, but found that the matters were not sufficiently clear cut at the interim relief stage. It was unable to conclude that the claimant had a pretty good chance of establishing the required matters at a full hearing, so the application for interim relief was refused.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | The determination refused the claimant's application for interim relief. It did not finally determine the underlying section 103A protected disclosure automatic unfair dismissal complaint. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
8 references- Rule 94 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024
- section 128 Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 129 Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 103A Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 43B Employment Rights Act 1996
- Taplin v Shippam Limited
- Ministry of Justice v Sarfraz
- Parsons v Airplus
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.