Track and trace worker's interim relief bid fails over employment status and non-attendance
An employment tribunal dismissed a track and trace call centre operative's claim for interim relief after finding she had no good chance of proving she was an employee or made protected disclosures. The case was later struck out when she failed to attend the final hearing.
2 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
Key facts
- The claimant was engaged as a track and trace call centre operative from 18 January 2021 to 1 April 2021.
- The claimant submitted a claim for interim relief under s128 ERA 1996, asserting automatic unfair dismissal for making public interest disclosures.
- The respondent argued the claimant was not an employee but an agency worker supplied by HR Go.
- The claimant made a covert recording of a conversation with a manager and shared it internally and externally.
- The claimant failed to attend the final hearing on 20 October 2022, leading to dismissal of all claims under Rule 47.
Timeline
-
Claimant engaged
The claimant started working as a track and trace call centre operative for Serco Group Plc.
-
Email alleging disclosures
The claimant sent an email setting out alleged public interest disclosures, including a disclosure to the ICO about data breach.
-
First claim submitted
The claimant submitted a claim against Serco Group Plc, HR Go Recruitment, and Andrew Giles, alleging discrimination and whistleblowing detriment.
-
Fit note sent
The claimant sent a fit note with a hospital referral, which she later claimed as a protected disclosure.
-
Engagement terminated
The claimant's engagement was terminated by Serco. She submitted a second claim for unfair dismissal and interim relief.
-
Interim relief hearing
Employment Judge Cadney heard the interim relief application and dismissed it, finding no good chance of success on employment status, protected disclosures, or reason for dismissal.
-
Final hearing
The claimant failed to attend the final hearing. All claims were dismissed under Rule 47 for non-attendance.
-
Judgment issued
Employment Judge Self issued the judgment dismissing all claims.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant had a good chance of proving she was an employee of Serco Group Plc, that she made public interest disclosures, and that the reason for her dismissal was those disclosures, in order to grant interim relief under section 128 of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed the claimant's application for interim relief at the hearing on 10 May 2021, finding she did not have a 'good chance' of success on any of the three key issues: employment status, protected disclosures, or the reason for dismissal.
- The claimant was an agency worker supplied by HR Go, and the tribunal doubted she could establish employee status with Serco.
- The alleged disclosures, including an email to the ICO about a data breach, were not clearly protected disclosures.
- The reason for termination appeared to be related to conduct (covert recording and sharing of a conversation), not whistleblowing.
The case was later dismissed in its entirety on 20 October 2022 after the claimant failed to attend the final hearing, under Rule 47 of the Employment Tribunal Rules.
Lessons & takeaways
- Interim relief requires a high threshold – you need a 'good chance' of winning at final hearing, not just a plausible claim.
- Employment status is critical: agency workers may not be employees and cannot bring unfair dismissal claims against the hirer.
- Covert recordings and sharing them externally can undermine a whistleblowing claim by providing a separate reason for dismissal.
- Failing to attend a final hearing will almost certainly result in your claim being dismissed, regardless of its merits.
A short-lived engagement and a complex claim
The claimant worked as a track and trace call centre operative for Serco Group Plc from January to April 2021. During her short tenure, she raised concerns about a data breach with the Information Commissioner's Office and made a covert recording of a conversation with her manager, which she shared internally and externally. When her engagement was terminated on 1 April 2021, she brought claims for unfair dismissal and whistleblowing detriment, along with an application for interim relief – a fast-track remedy that can require the employer to continue paying the claimant until the full hearing.
Why interim relief was refused
At the interim relief hearing on 10 May 2021, Employment Judge Cadney applied the strict test set out in Ministry of Justice v Sarfraz: the claimant needed to show a 'good chance' – significantly more than 50% – that a final tribunal would find in her favour. The judge identified three fundamental hurdles. First, the claimant was an agency worker supplied by HR Go, and the contractual documents suggested she was not an employee of Serco, meaning she could not bring an unfair dismissal claim. Second, the alleged protected disclosures – an email to the ICO and a fit note – did not clearly meet the legal definition of a public interest disclosure. Third, the reason for dismissal appeared to be the covert recording and its dissemination, which Serco cited as a breach of its code of conduct, rather than the disclosures themselves.
A case that never reached full hearing
The interim relief application was dismissed, and the case was listed for a final hearing in October 2022. However, the claimant did not attend. Under Rule 47 of the Employment Tribunal Rules, the tribunal dismissed all her claims. The judgment notes that she had been reminded of the hearing date and the consequences of non-attendance. The case ultimately turned on procedural failures as much as on the merits of the whistleblowing allegations.
What this means for similar claims
This case illustrates the high bar for interim relief in whistleblowing cases. Claimants must have strong evidence on employment status, the content of the alleged disclosures, and the reason for dismissal – all before the full hearing. It also shows that agency workers face an additional hurdle: even if they have a strong whistleblowing claim, they may not be able to bring it as an unfair dismissal if they are not employees. Finally, the case is a reminder that failing to attend a hearing – for whatever reason – will almost certainly end the claim.
Similar cases
Locum physiotherapist's unfair dismissal claim fails over employment status
A locum physiotherapist who claimed he was unfairly dismissed had his case thrown out after the tribunal found he was a worker, not an employee, and failed to comply with court orders.
Agency worker's whistleblowing claim fails: tribunal says she was not an employee
A scientist who worked for the UK Health Security Agency via an umbrella company was not an employee, the tribunal ruled, striking out her claim for automatically unfair dismissal over protected disclosures.
Agency worker's employment status claims dismissed: no contract with end-user
An agency worker who claimed unfair dismissal, sex discrimination and equal pay against the end-user and hirer lost all claims after the tribunal found he was not an employee of either respondent.
Agency worker's whistleblowing and harassment claims dismissed after short assignment
A housing officer who worked for Central Bedfordshire Council for just one month via an agency had her claims of whistleblowing detriment and harassment related to disability and transgender status dismissed by the Watford Employment Tribunal.