Interim relief denied: Construction manager's whistleblower claim fails high threshold
A construction manager who claimed she was dismissed for raising health and safety concerns has had her interim relief application rejected. The tribunal found factual disputes meant she did not meet the high threshold for interim relief.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as a Construction Manager from 7 February 2022 to 19 August 2022.
- The claimant made health and safety disclosures about construction sites to management.
- The respondent dismissed the claimant during her probation period for capability and performance reasons.
- The claimant applied for interim relief, claiming the principal reason for dismissal was protected disclosures.
- The tribunal found the claimant had a reasonable belief in the public interest of her disclosures.
- The tribunal concluded the claimant did not meet the high threshold for interim relief due to factual disputes.
Timeline
-
Claimant started working unpaid
Claimant states she worked unpaid as Construction Manager from this date; respondent disputes.
-
Written contract commenced
Claimant's written contract of employment began.
-
Probation Period Review
Claimant's two-month probation review; she raised health and safety issues.
-
Video of construction site
Claimant took video of construction site at Arthingworth Street showing health and safety concerns.
-
CTM meeting
Claimant raised health and safety issues at a CTM meeting.
-
Video of Sandar Apartments
Claimant took video of Sandar Apartments showing potential asbestos and combustible material.
-
CTM meeting
Claimant raised health and safety issues at another CTM meeting.
-
Site progress meeting
Claimant raised health and safety issues at a site progress meeting.
-
Meeting with Paul Ugwu
Claimant raised health and safety and financial issues with line manager.
-
Dismissal
Claimant was dismissed from employment.
-
Claim presented
Claimant presented claim to Employment Tribunal and applied for interim relief.
-
Interim relief hearing
Hearing of the interim relief application before Employment Judge F Allen.
The legal issue
Whether the claimant had a 'pretty good chance' of proving that the principal reason for her dismissal was her protected disclosures about health and safety, which would entitle her to interim relief pending a full hearing.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed the application for interim relief.
The key reason was that the claimant did not meet the high threshold required for interim relief. While the tribunal accepted she had made protected disclosures, there were significant factual disputes about whether those disclosures were the real reason for dismissal. The respondent had put forward evidence of capability and performance issues during her probation period.
No compensation was awarded as this was an interim relief application, not a final hearing.
Lessons & takeaways
- Interim relief is a high hurdle — you need a 'pretty good chance' of winning at trial, not just a plausible claim.
- If your employer has documented performance concerns before your dismissal, it weakens a whistleblowing claim.
- Keep evidence of positive feedback and any lack of prior capability issues to counter an employer's performance case.
- Making protected disclosures does not automatically protect you from dismissal if there are other genuine reasons for termination.
A short-lived role, a swift dismissal
This case involved a construction manager who was dismissed during her probation period, just six months into her role with the London Borough of Newham. She had raised health and safety concerns about construction sites, including potential asbestos and combustible materials, and had also flagged issues about public spending. She believed these disclosures were the real reason she was let go, and she applied for interim relief — a fast-track remedy that can keep an employee in post or pay them until a full hearing.
Why interim relief was refused
The tribunal acknowledged that the claimant had made protected disclosures and that she reasonably believed they were in the public interest. However, the test for interim relief is deliberately strict: the claimant must show a 'pretty good chance' of winning at a full hearing. Here, there was a clear dispute of fact. The respondent said the dismissal was due to capability and performance — that the claimant, although an architect, had not demonstrated the transferable skills needed for the construction manager role. The respondent had also raised concerns at the probation review before the disclosures were made.
What this means for similar claims
This case highlights the difficulty of winning interim relief when the employer has a documented performance case. Even where protected disclosures exist, a tribunal will not grant interim relief if there is a genuine factual dispute about the reason for dismissal. For employees considering a whistleblowing claim, it is crucial to gather evidence that links the dismissal directly to the disclosures — for example, timing, comments from managers, or a sudden change in attitude after the disclosures. Without that, the interim relief threshold is unlikely to be met.
Similar cases
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.
Short-service whistleblower fails to win interim relief after dismissal for unauthorised absence
A machine tool maintenance technician with 11 months' service was refused interim relief after being dismissed for unauthorised absence. The tribunal found he did not have a 'pretty good chance' of proving his whistleblowing claim, but allowed the case to proceed to a full hearing.
Interim relief refused for SHEQ Advisor dismissed after raising fire safety concerns
An employment tribunal refused interim relief to a probationary SHEQ Advisor who claimed she was automatically unfairly dismissed for raising fire safety concerns. The tribunal found she did not have a pretty good chance of proving the email was the principal reason for her dismissal.
Interim relief refused: probation dismissal for poor performance not linked to alleged protected disclosure
An office administrator dismissed during her probation period failed to convince a tribunal that her refusal to sign a loan document was a protected disclosure. The interim relief application was refused.