Luxion Sales Ltd

Case Summary

The claimant sought interim relief on the basis that his dismissal was automatically unfair under section 103A of the Employment Rights Act 1996, alleging he made protected disclosures about concerns regarding his treatment at work. Employment Judge A Kemp refused the application for interim relief, finding that the claimant had not met the statutory test of having a pretty good chance of success, as there were material areas of doubt and conflicts in evidence regarding what disclosures were made and whether the dismissal was motivated by those disclosures.

The tribunal found that the claimant had not met the statutory test for interim relief. There were material areas of doubt regarding whether the claimant made protected disclosures in the required sense, what his state of mind was when making any disclosures, and whether the dismissal was caused by protected disclosures or by other factors such as the covert recording or failure to follow absence procedures. The tribunal considered there was a not insignificant risk for the claimant on these issues, meaning he did not have a pretty good chance of success at final hearing.

Use these claim-type pages to compare this decision with other published tribunal cases, outcome patterns, and visible award data.

• •Application for interim relief under section 128 of the Employment Rights Act 1996
• •Whether dismissal was automatically unfair under section 103A of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (protected disclosure/whistleblowing)
• •Whether claimant made protected disclosures to employer
• •Whether dismissal was because claimant made protected disclosures
• •Likelihood of success of whistleblowing claim at final hearing

The full source document is available from the official publication page.