ETZ 4(WR) EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 8001943/2025 Interim Relief Hearing at Edinburgh on August 2025 Employment Judge: M A Macleod Alastair Logan v Diligenta Limited — 2025

This was a hearing on the claimant's application for interim relief on 28 August 2025. The tribunal heard submissions only, not evidence, after deciding there was no basis to depart from the normal practice and that hearing the claimant's evidence without a proper opportunity for the respondent to test it would create prejudice. The judge applied sections 128 and 129 ERA 1996 and the Taplin and Sarfraz authorities on the meaning of "likely", namely that the claimant needed to show a pretty good chance of success.

On the whistleblowing basis, the claimant relied on three alleged disclosures. The first, on 15 March 2025, concerned a disabled employee being required to state that they were fit for work without reasonable adjustments and the extension of probationary arrangements; the judge said that may amount to a disclosure of information, but may be treated as personal concerns rather than a matter of public interest. The second alleged disclosure, on 10 July 2025, was said not to form part of the pleaded case. The third, on 18 July 2025, was said to be too broad and insufficiently specific. The tribunal also found that causation would remain a live factual dispute requiring evidence, including the respondent's case that the dismissal letter set out performance concerns and that the claimant had conflated the test for interim relief with ordinary fairness under section 98 ERA 1996.

On the blacklisting basis, the claimant argued that he had been blacklisted for 20 years since an incident at Sellafield in 2005 and that the respondent had treated him in a similar way to earlier employers. The judge described that case as very unclear and unfocused, and said it was not clear how the alleged blacklisting related to the respondent rather than to other employers. The tribunal also said the respondent's accusations were capable of an innocent explanation on the papers. It concluded that the claimant was not likely to persuade a final tribunal that the real reason for his dismissal was blacklisting, and therefore refused interim relief. The judge added that this was not a finding that the claims had no reasonable prospect of success, and that the claimant could continue with them at the appropriate final hearing.