Agency worker's whistleblowing claim: interim relief refused over employment status
An agency worker who claimed she was dismissed for whistleblowing had her interim relief application refused because she could not show a 'pretty good chance' of proving she was an employee of the respondent.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Key facts
- The claimant began working for the London Borough of Hounslow via an agency on 10 October 2019.
- Her employment contract was with Umbrella-Company Limited, not Hounslow.
- She made protected disclosures to a manager on 9 February 2022 and to the CQC on 14 February 2022.
- She was absent sick from 21 February 2022 and was locked out of her IT account on 9 March 2022.
- Her assignment with Hounslow ended on 10 March 2022, but her employment with Umbrella-Company Limited was not terminated.
- The interim relief application was refused because she could not show a pretty good chance of proving she was an employee of Hounslow or that the dismissal was due to protected disclosures.
Timeline
-
Registered with Morgan Hunt
The claimant registered with the employment agency Morgan Hunt.
-
Started work at Hounslow
The claimant began working as a Community Engagement Officer for the London Borough of Hounslow via the agency.
-
First protected disclosure
The claimant disclosed concerns about resident safety to manager Christine Acock.
-
Reported to CQC
The claimant repeated her concerns to the Care Quality Commission.
-
Locked out of IT system
The claimant found she could not log into her work laptop; she was told IT had been informed she had left.
-
Assignment ended
The claimant's assignment with Hounslow ended; she considered this a dismissal.
-
Claim form submitted
The claimant submitted her ET1 claim form, including an application for interim relief.
-
Interim relief hearing
Employment Judge M Warren heard and refused the interim relief application.
-
Final hearing and strike-out
Employment Judge Anstis struck out most claims, leaving only an unfair dismissal claim against Umbrella-Company Limited.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant had a 'pretty good chance' of winning her claim that she was automatically unfairly dismissed for making protected disclosures, and whether she was an employee of the respondent who dismissed her.
The outcome
The tribunal refused the application for interim relief. The key reason was that the claimant could not show a 'pretty good chance' of success: she was an agency worker with a contract with Umbrella-Company Limited, but her assignment ended with the London Borough of Hounslow, and there was no evidence that Umbrella-Company Limited dismissed her. The tribunal noted that her employment with Umbrella-Company Limited continued after the assignment ended.
No compensation was awarded as the interim relief application was refused.
Lessons & takeaways
- Interim relief is a high bar: you must show a 'pretty good chance' of winning your claim, not just a plausible case.
- Agency workers should check who their employer is – the end-user client may not be the employer for unfair dismissal purposes.
- If your assignment ends but your agency contract continues, you may not have been 'dismissed' in employment law terms.
- Protected disclosures must be made to the right person or body – but even then, you need to show the dismissal was because of them.
This case illustrates the hurdles agency workers face when bringing whistleblowing claims. The claimant, a Community Engagement Officer, believed she was dismissed after raising concerns about resident safety to her manager and the Care Quality Commission. However, her employment was through an umbrella company, and when her assignment with the local authority ended, her contract with the umbrella company was not terminated. This made it difficult to argue that she had been 'dismissed' by the respondent.
The interim relief test
Interim relief is a powerful remedy that requires the employer to continue paying the employee pending a full hearing. But the test is deliberately high: the claimant must show a 'pretty good chance' of success. Here, the tribunal found that the claimant could not meet that threshold. The evidence did not clearly show that Umbrella-Company Limited was the employer who dismissed her, or that the reason for the end of her assignment was her protected disclosures.
What the respondent could have done differently
Umbrella-Company Limited did not attend the hearing, which did not help their case. However, the tribunal noted that the claimant's contract with them continued after the assignment ended, suggesting they had not dismissed her. If they had communicated more clearly about the end of the assignment and the ongoing employment relationship, the confusion might have been avoided.
Why this matters for similar claims
This case is a reminder that interim relief applications are not a routine step – they require strong evidence from the outset. Agency workers in particular need to be clear about who their employer is and whether a dismissal has actually occurred. The decision also highlights that the tribunal will not assume a dismissal just because a placement ends; the contractual relationship must be examined.
Similar cases
Whistleblowing unfair dismissal claim struck out after interim relief refused
A Data Protection Officer who alleged he was dismissed for making protected disclosures saw his claim struck out after failing to comply with tribunal orders. His interim relief application was dismissed for not meeting the high threshold of a 'pretty good chance' of success.
Former employee's detriment claim struck out as abuse of process
A former employee's claim for protected disclosure detriment was struck out after the tribunal found the alleged acts were covered by judicial proceedings immunity and the claim was an abuse of process. A costs order of £20,000 was made.
Interim relief refused: redundancy decision made before protected disclosures
A senior contracts attorney lost her bid for interim relief after the tribunal found her redundancy was decided before she made protected disclosures about sanctions risks. The claim was dismissed.
Furniture installer dismissed after raising phone mount safety concern: interim relief revoked
A furniture installer who was dismissed shortly after asking for a phone mount and charger to navigate safely lost his unfair dismissal claim when the tribunal revoked an earlier interim relief order and later dismissed the case.