Mr F Mooney v Lanarkshire Health Board — 2025

At the interim relief hearing on 8 August 2025, Employment Judge Campbell considered Mr F Mooney's application arising from his amended claim alleging automatic unfair dismissal by reason of protected disclosures after his dismissal by Lanarkshire Health Board on 25 June 2025. The issue was whether the section 129(1)(a)(i) ERA 1996 threshold was met, namely whether it was likely that the claimant would succeed at a full hearing on the whistleblowing dismissal complaint.

The claimant relied on alleged disclosures on 2 May 2022, 12 May 2022, 22 January 2025 and 1 June 2025. The tribunal found that the 2022 exchanges were not likely to amount to protected disclosures because they were largely statements about the Dress Code Policy, discrimination, and general rights, and did not clearly convey information about a qualifying risk to health and safety or a breach of legal obligation. The judge also considered the claimant's asserted beliefs about reasonableness and public interest to be open to challenge, particularly in light of the tribunal's previous judgment dated 13 January 2025 dismissing his discrimination complaints.

The 22 January 2025 letter and the 1 June 2025 letter were also found not to meet the likely test on the papers. The January letter mainly revisited the earlier dispute over hair management and the Dress Code Policy, although it also raised additional matters such as Human Rights Act and data protection complaints. The June letter repeated the same essential position. The tribunal accepted that parts of the later correspondence referred to possible headaches, neck strain, and contamination risk, but held that the claimant had not shown that those asserted risks were likely to be accepted without challenge at a full hearing.

On causation, the tribunal considered a statement from Mr Stephen Peebles, who said the dismissal panel found gross misconduct in the claimant's refusal to engage with managers to explore a way to work while complying with the policy, and an irretrievable breakdown in the working relationship. The panel had considered the disclosures and INWO material, and the judge concluded that this evidence at least cast doubt on whether any protected disclosure was the sole or principal reason for dismissal. The INWO's statement of reasons dated 10 July 2025 was also said not to assist the claimant, including its view that the concerns about the Dress Code Policy were too personal in nature to qualify as being in the public interest. The application for interim relief was therefore refused, and the judgment made clear that no final facts were being determined for the underlying claim.