Mr J McCall v Glasgow Prestwick Airport Limited — 2026

The claimant applied for interim relief under sections 128 to 132 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 pending his section 103A claim that he had been automatically unfairly dismissed for making protected disclosures. The hearing took place on 22 December 2025 in Glasgow. The respondent said it would not reinstate or re-engage him if interim relief were granted, so the tribunal had to decide whether it appeared likely that the final tribunal would find that the reason or principal reason for dismissal was protected disclosure.

The claimant relied on three alleged disclosures: emails to the respondent on 6 and 16 November and an email to the Civil Aviation Authority on 23 November. He said agency workers in the bonded warehouse were handling ULD pallet bases, nets and related equipment without the screening he said was required by CAA-related aviation security rules, and he also advanced a health-and-safety case. The tribunal accepted that the precise legal obligation did not have to be set out in strict legal language, but it held that there was doubt on the material before it about what legal obligation was said to apply, whether it applied to the particular warehouse and workers, and whether the claimant genuinely and reasonably believed that the information he disclosed tended to show non-compliance or a health-and-safety risk.

The tribunal also recorded a central dispute about causation. The claimant relied on the short timescale between the disclosures and his summary dismissal on 1 December 2025, and on comments made at the 19 November meeting. The respondent's evidence was that it dismissed him because it considered him an insider threat and was concerned about his interest in sensitive security processes. Applying the Taplin test, and noting the summary nature of the hearing, the tribunal held that it could not say the claimant had a pretty good chance of succeeding on the section 103A claim. Interim relief was therefore refused, no findings in fact were made, and no continuation-of-contract order or monetary remedy arose.