Interim relief application refused when tribunal found it was unlikely that the decision to dismiss was based upon protected disclosures; rather it was more likely to be the misconduct of the claimant.

The claimant was suspended from duty in February 2025 on the basis of alleged gross misconduct. An investigation followed and the claimant was invited to a disciplinary hearing.  A decision was made to dismiss the claimant as a result of the process. The process found that there were several staff who had made complaints that the claimant’s conduct was intimidating and aggressive.

The claimant brought a Tribunal action stating that there was a conspiracy to dismiss him and that the respondent had falsified documents and staff colluded to discredit his version of events when he stated that he had been sexually assaulted. The claimant alleged that he had made protected disclosures and they were the reason for the dismissal.

The respondent argued that the claimant’s disclosures did not identify a breach of a legal requirement and they were personal matters relating to the claimant. The claimant sought interim relief during the Tribunal process.

The Tribunal refused the interim relief application stating that even on a cursory consideration of the papers it was apparent that the claimant was investigated and dismissed due to his conduct and not because of concerns that had been raised.   On appeal to the EAT, it was recognised that the Tribunal decision was brief but when it was read as a whole it outlined that on a summary assessment there was insufficient evidence to demonstrate that the dismissal was due to a protected disclosure.  The claimant did point to the fact that the Employment Judge had not referred to an alleged disclosure in February 2025 but it was not in the claim and the EAT held that the Judge cannot be criticised for considering only the pleaded case rather than other factors.   Therefore, it was held that the initial assessment undertaken by the Employment Judge did not err in law.  It was noted that it was not a finding and that the assessment made could well be proven wrong once the full evidence is heard.

An opportunity for an examination of interim relief applications and how they are viewed by the Tribunal. It is apt to note that for interim relief it is a summary assessment of the case rather than it being a full finding, making findings of fact or points that would affect the full case.  In this situation, the evidence was set out by the respondent relating to why they had made the decision to dismiss whereas the respondent had not set forward any evidence in his claim of the conspiracy against him.

You can read the case in full here.