Claimant v BXTR 3 Ltd — 2026

The claimant presented a claim on 29 November 2025 alleging that he had made a protected disclosure and that his subsequent dismissal was automatically unfair under section 103A of the Employment Rights Act 1996. He also applied for interim relief. The tribunal approached the application under sections 128 to 132 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and cited the need to decide whether the claimant was likely to succeed at the full hearing, referring to London City Airport Ltd v Chacko and Taplin v C Shipman Ltd.

The tribunal said there would be significant factual disputes and issues of credibility to resolve, including whether the claimant had made a qualifying disclosure and, crucially, whether the respondent had already decided to dismiss him before any disclosure was made. It noted that there was a coincidence of timing on the claimant's account, because he said a serious security incident occurred at the respondent's premises on 25 November 2025, he called 999, and he later made a formal report to the hotel manager that night, before being dismissed on 28 November, his next scheduled shift.

The respondent accepted that there had been a security incident on 25 November and that a 999 call was made, but disputed the rest of the claimant's account. It said the decision to terminate the claimant's employment had already been made on 22 November because he was not going to meet the required standards, and that his line manager was to tell him on 28 November because that was the next suitable shift on which they would both be working. On that basis, the tribunal concluded that there were fundamental disputes of fact and credibility and that it could not say the claimant had a pretty good chance of success at the full hearing, so it refused the application for interim relief.