Interim relief denied: whistleblower claim fails for fixed-term civil servant
A senior civil servant who claimed his fixed-term contract was not renewed because of whistleblowing disclosures has lost his bid for interim relief. The tribunal found no 'pretty good chance' he would win at a final hearing.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #interim-relief
- #public-interest-disclosure
- #unfair-dismissal
- #fixed-term-contract
- #security-breach
- #senior-civil-servant
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as a senior civil servant on a fixed-term contract from 30 November 2020 to 30 September 2022.
- The claimant raised concerns about locking of senior leadership team in the office for health and safety reasons and data security risks.
- The claimant was investigated for sending over 200 emails from his work email to his personal email, a gross misconduct offence, but received a final written warning.
- The respondent had decided in May 2022 not to extend the claimant's contract, before the claimant raised a grievance on 8 September 2022.
- The claimant's contract was not extended and ended on 30 September 2022; other senior staff also left as infection rates reduced.
Timeline
-
Employment start
Claimant started employment as a senior civil servant on a fixed-term contract with UK Health Security Agency.
-
Contract extension in writing
Claimant's contract was extended in writing until 30 September 2022.
-
Decision not to further extend
Respondent decided internally that claimant's contract should not be extended beyond September 2022.
-
Grievance raised
Claimant submitted a grievance alleging he had made public interest disclosures about breaches of legal obligations.
-
Notification of contract end
Claimant was informed that his fixed-term contract would end on 30 September 2022.
-
Employment ended
Claimant's fixed-term contract expired and his employment ended.
-
Claim form presented
Claimant brought complaints of automatically unfair dismissal and applied for interim relief.
-
Interim relief hearing
Hearing to determine the application for interim relief.
-
Judgment issued
Employment Judge Wedderspoon dismissed the application for interim relief and held the tribunal had no jurisdiction.
The legal issue
Whether the claimant had a 'pretty good chance' of establishing at a final hearing that the reason for his dismissal was that he had made protected public interest disclosures, so as to warrant interim relief under section 128 of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed the application for interim relief and held it had no jurisdiction to determine the claim at this stage.
The key reason was that the claimant failed to meet the high threshold of showing a 'pretty good chance' of success. The tribunal noted that the respondent had decided not to extend the contract in May 2022, months before the claimant raised his grievance in September 2022. Other senior staff also left as infection rates reduced, undermining the link between the disclosures and the non-renewal.
No compensation was awarded as this was an interim relief application, not a final hearing.
Lessons & takeaways
- Interim relief is a high bar: you need a 'pretty good chance' of winning at a final hearing, not just a plausible claim.
- Timing matters: if the employer's decision to dismiss was made before any protected disclosure, the link between the two is weak.
- Fixed-term employees should be aware that non-renewal may be for genuine operational reasons, not retaliation.
- Keep records of when decisions are communicated; a pre-existing decision can defeat a whistleblower claim.
What this case shows
This case illustrates the difficulty of winning interim relief in a whistleblower claim, especially when the employer's decision predates the alleged protected disclosures. The claimant, a senior civil servant on a fixed-term contract, argued that his contract was not renewed because he raised concerns about health and safety and data security. However, the tribunal found that the respondent had already decided in May 2022 not to extend his contract, while the grievance was raised in September 2022. The timing gap made it unlikely that the disclosures were the principal reason for the non-renewal.
What the respondent did right
The respondent had a clear internal record of the decision not to extend the contract, made months before the grievance. They also pointed to wider organisational changes, with other senior staff leaving as infection rates dropped. This allowed them to show a non-retaliatory reason for the decision. For employers, this case underscores the importance of documenting decisions early and ensuring they are not linked to later employee complaints.
Why this matters for similar claims
For employees considering a whistleblower claim, this case is a reminder that interim relief is an exceptional remedy. The 'pretty good chance' test is significantly higher than the balance of probabilities. Even if a disclosure is protected, the claimant must show it was the principal reason for dismissal, not just a factor. Fixed-term workers should also be aware that non-renewal may be for genuine operational reasons, and that a pre-existing decision can be a powerful defence.
Similar cases
Letter of concern about colleague's dismissal not a protected disclosure
A locum clinical neuropsychologist's claim for unfair dismissal after sending a 'Letter of Concern' about a former colleague's dismissal has been struck out. The tribunal found the letter was not a qualifying protected disclosure.
Unfair dismissal remedy includes £4,000 for loss of company car despite new job
A former employee with two years' service won £2,575.34 in unfair dismissal compensation after losing his company car, even though he found a higher-paying job. The tribunal awarded £4,000 for the car benefit, reduced by 75% for contributory fault.
Whistleblowing claim: repeated amendment applications not unreasonable enough for costs
A former chartered accountant who made multiple applications to amend her whistleblowing and sex discrimination claims avoided a costs order, even though most amendments were refused. The tribunal said her conduct was not unreasonable or vexatious.
Lead Software Consultant's whistleblowing claims dismissed as out of time
An employment tribunal struck out a Lead Software Consultant's whistleblowing detriment and automatically unfair dismissal claims, leaving only an ordinary unfair dismissal claim to proceed. The tribunal also refused the employer's bid to strike out the remaining claim due to the claimant's conduct.