Decision date
19 March 2026
Tribunal
Employment Tribunal
Jurisdiction
England & Wales
Judge
Employment Judge M Siddique
Case Summary
The claimant, a driving examiner for DVSA, was dismissed for gross misconduct following an allegation of threatening behaviour toward his line manager after making a whistleblowing complaint about illegal audio recording in the office. The claimant applied for interim relief under s.128 Employment Rights Act 1996, contending he was dismissed because of the protected disclosure. The tribunal refused the application, finding the claimant had not demonstrated a 'pretty good chance' of establishing the protected disclosure was the principal reason for dismissal, given the involvement of independent investigators and decision-makers unconnected to the protected disclosure complaint.
Why this outcome?
No reasonable prospectsThe tribunal found that although the claimant had a pretty good chance of establishing elements (1)-(4) of a protected disclosure claim, he failed to show a pretty good chance that the protected disclosure was the principal reason for dismissal. The decision-maker (Mr Pearson) and investigator (Adam Harris) were from different regions with no apparent connection to the protected disclosure or Mr Khan, suggesting independence. Whilst the timing of the misconduct complaint raised concerns about ulterior motive requiring scrutiny, crucial factual matters about the nature of the conversation with Mr Khan were disputed and could only properly be tested through oral evidence at the full hearing, not at a summary interim relief hearing.
Claim Types
Related claim guides
Use these claim-type pages to compare this decision with other published tribunal cases, outcome patterns, and visible award data.
See whistleblowing compensation dataKey Issues
- •whether claimant made a protected disclosure within s.43A ERA
- •whether disclosure tended to show breach of legal obligation (GDPR/human rights)
- •whether claimant believed disclosure was in public interest
- •whether claimant's beliefs were reasonably held
- •whether protected disclosure was principal reason for dismissal
- •whether gross misconduct dismissal was genuinely motivated by alleged threatening behaviour or by protected disclosure
Original published judgment
The full source document is available from the official publication page.
Something doesn't look right?
Report a wrong claim type, outcome, summary, or award.
Case Details
Hearing venue
Decided at Nottingham Employment Tribunal →- Case No.
- 6004659/2026
- Tribunal
- Employment Tribunal
- Level
- First instance
- Decision
- 19 March 2026
- Published
- 29 April 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge M Siddique
- Industry
- public sector - transport/vehicle regulation
- Representation
- Litigant in person