Case 8001535/2026 · Employment Tribunal
Mr R Scotland v Falkirk Council — 2026
- Case reference
- 8001535/2026
- Decision date
- 17 July 2026
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge A Kemp
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr R Scotland
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr R Scotland applied for interim relief under sections 128 and 129 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 pending final determination of his claim that his resignation on 25 June 2026 amounted to constructive dismissal and that the sole or principal reason was his making protected disclosures. On the written material and submissions, without oral evidence, the tribunal considered whether he had a "pretty good chance" of succeeding, a likelihood significantly higher than the balance of probabilities.
The tribunal found that Mr Scotland had a pretty good chance of proving that his email of 2 February 2026 was a qualifying and protected disclosure. The email included information about the management of pupil A, the health and safety of pupils and staff, record keeping, risk management and safeguarding. The tribunal also considered that he had a pretty good chance of proving that his belief was reasonable and included a belief that the issues were in the public interest.
On a fairly fine balance, the tribunal found that Mr Scotland did not have a pretty good chance of proving a constructive dismissal. Delays in dealing with his grievance and the matters raised with Mr Moody, together with the lack of explanations for those delays, gave him a reasonable argument. Countervailing factors included the material possibility that the respondent had reasonable and proper cause for its actions and the potential inconsistency between resigning because trust and confidence had broken down and then seeking interim relief to restore the contract.
The tribunal also found that, even if a dismissal were proved, Mr Scotland did not have a pretty good chance of showing that protected disclosures were its sole or principal reason. The circumstances involved several people, several possible reasons and matters personal to him, including pay. The decision not to continue full sick pay appeared on the material available to follow the respondent's process, while the link between that decision and any disclosure appeared limited. The application for interim relief was refused, with the tribunal expressly stating that this did not indicate whether the section 103A claim would succeed or fail at a final hearing. No monetary remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | The application for interim relief under section 128 ERA 1996 was refused. The tribunal expressly made no final determination of the underlying section 103A automatic unfair dismissal claim, the alleged constructive dismissal, or any other pleaded claim. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
9 references- sections 128 and 129 ERA 1996 interim relief test
- "pretty good chance" test in Taplin v C Shippam Ltd
- section 95(1)(c) ERA 1996 constructive dismissal test
- material or repudiatory breach test in Western Excavating (ECC) Ltd v Sharp
- final straw test in London Borough of Waltham Forest v Omilaju and Kaur v Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust
- section 103A ERA 1996 reason or principal reason test
- sections 43A and 43B ERA 1996 qualifying and protected disclosure test
- prima facie case and burden-shifting approach in Dahou v Serco Ltd
- summary assessment approach in London City Airport v Chacko
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.