Mr I Khan v Britannia Hotels Limited — 2026

Mr Khan alleged that he had been automatically unfairly dismissed because he made protected disclosures. He relied on concerns allegedly raised on 8 April 2026 about insufficient porter hours and staff not being paid for all hours worked, and on an earlier concern about payment for work on Christmas Day. Britannia Hotels Limited maintained that he was dismissed because his performance was unsatisfactory.

The Tribunal applied the interim relief threshold of whether Mr Khan had a “pretty good chance of success” in establishing each necessary aspect of his claim. It found significant factual disputes requiring evidence, including what Mr Khan had said, whether his statements conveyed information amounting to protected disclosures under section 43B ERA 1996, and whether the respondent had genuine concerns about his performance. Mr Khan could not identify contemporaneous evidence that he had raised unpaid-hours concerns on 8 April, as distinct from concerns about the allocation of sufficient staffing hours, and the Tribunal found his account of what he said on that date somewhat vague.

On the information before it, the Tribunal was not satisfied that it was likely a tribunal would find either that Mr Khan had made protected disclosures or that any protected disclosure was the reason or principal reason for his dismissal. The interim relief application was therefore refused. No monetary remedy was awarded, and the underlying complaint was to proceed to a preliminary hearing for case management after receipt of the response form.