Case 8000667/2026 · Employment Tribunal
Mr N Ferry v Luxion Sales Ltd — 2026
- Case reference
- 8000667/2026
- Decision date
- 17 April 2026
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge A Kemp
- Venue
- Dundee
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr N Ferry
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr Ferry applied for interim relief under section 128 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 in connection with his claim that Luxion Sales Ltd dismissed him for making protected disclosures, contrary to section 103A. The preliminary hearing proceeded on submissions, documents and witness statements without oral evidence. Employment Judge A Kemp made a summary assessment rather than findings of fact of the kind to be made at a Final Hearing.
The claimant relied on concerns raised about sales practices, regulatory or legal compliance, customer information and third-party verification. The tribunal considered that some matters raised might be capable of being protected disclosures, although there was uncertainty about the asserted criminal acts or breaches of legal obligation and about whether the claimant held the required reasonable belief.
The tribunal therefore focused on whether the claimant had a sufficiently strong prospect of proving that the disclosures were the sole or principal reason for dismissal. Matters supporting his position included the timing of the dismissal, limited detail about the grievance investigations, the absence of a disciplinary procedure, the treatment of allegations arising from the recording, and the relationship between his attendance and the conduct about which he complained. The respondent's stated reasons were his limited attendance and associated medical information, and his concealed recording of his manager. The tribunal found that there was material capable of supporting both stated reasons and that resolving the competing accounts would require oral evidence and cross-examination.
The tribunal concluded that the claimant had not shown the “pretty good chance” of success, significantly higher than probability, required for interim relief. The application was refused. The judgment expressly stated that this did not indicate that the section 103A claim was likely to fail; that claim might or might not succeed after the evidence was heard at a Final Hearing. No monetary award was made or assessed.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The application for interim relief under section 128 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 was refused. The underlying section 103A automatic unfair dismissal claim was not determined and remains for a Final Hearing. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
6 references- section 128 and section 129 ERA 1996 interim relief test
- Taplin v C Shippam Ltd “pretty good chance” test
- Ministry of Justice v Sarfraz “significantly higher degree of likelihood” test
- section 103A ERA 1996 sole or principal reason test
- Dahou v Serco Ltd prima facie case and shifting burden approach
- London City Airport v Chacko expeditious summary assessment
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.