Mr C Wallis v Venesky-Brown Recruitment Limited st and 1 other — 2025

The claim form presented on 1 October 2025 included a claim of unfair dismissal and an application for interim relief based on an alleged protected disclosure under s.103A ERA 1996. The tribunal dealt only with the interim relief application against the first respondent, because an unfair dismissal claim and any interim relief application could proceed only against the employer. It stated that it was making no findings of fact and that its summary assessment would not bind any future tribunal.

Applying the s.129(1) ERA 1996 question, the tribunal considered whether it appeared likely that the principal reason for dismissal would be the protected-disclosure reason. Mr Brown accepted that he knew of the claimant's email to HR on 26 September 2025 and that it formed part of the dismissal reason, but said the issue was the tone of the email and the cumulative effect of earlier correspondence. The judge considered the email was not obviously inappropriate or inflammatory, noted that some parts may be true, and recorded that the claimant was dismissed on the afternoon of the same day without prior warning or any disciplinary process.

The tribunal nevertheless held that, on a summary interim-relief assessment, it was not likely that the full tribunal would find the s.103A reason to be the principal reason for dismissal. It referred to the caution required when drawing inferences at this stage, the possibility of other conduct-related reasons, the alleged misuse of Vincere software, earlier correspondence, a breakdown in relations, a grievance involving Mr Brown, and the claimant's case that seven protected disclosures had been made. The application for interim relief was therefore dismissed on 14 November 2025.