Whistleblowing on fire safety: interim relief granted after dismissal during probation
A communications and marketing officer with only eight months' service was dismissed shortly after raising fire safety concerns. The tribunal granted interim relief, finding he had a 'pretty good chance' of proving automatic unfair dismissal.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #interim-relief
- #protected-disclosure
- #fire-safety
- #probation-review
- #pretty-good-chance
Key facts
- The claimant made a protected disclosure about fire safety on 27 July 2022.
- The respondent accepted the disclosure was protected.
- The claimant was dismissed on 14 October 2022, after a probation review process.
- There was no corroborative evidence of performance concerns before the disclosure.
- The tribunal found it likely the principal reason for dismissal was the protected disclosure.
Timeline
-
Employment commenced
The claimant started work as a communications and marketing officer.
-
Four-month review
No performance concerns were raised at the review.
-
Instructed to prepare fire safety presentation
The claimant was asked to prepare a short presentation on fire safety for a staff meeting.
-
Protected disclosure made
The claimant emailed his fire safety concerns to Ms Wilson and others. The respondent later accepted this as a protected disclosure.
-
Probation review letter sent
The claimant received a letter scheduling a formal probation review, which could lead to dismissal.
-
Claimant raised grievance and reported to HSE
The claimant raised a grievance and reported his concerns to the Health and Safety Executive.
-
Third-party fire assessment
A fire assessment concluded the building was not unsafe, though issues needed addressing.
-
Dismissal
The claimant was dismissed by letter.
-
Interim relief granted
The tribunal granted interim relief, ordering continuation of the claimant's contract of employment.
The legal issue
Whether the claimant had a 'pretty good chance' of showing that the principal reason for his dismissal was his protected disclosure about fire safety, rather than performance concerns.
The outcome
The tribunal granted interim relief, ordering Wren Music to continue the claimant's contract of employment pending the full hearing.
Key reasons:
- The protected disclosure was accepted as genuine and made on 27 July 2022.
- No performance concerns were raised before the disclosure; the four-month review on 23 June was positive.
- The formal probation review letter was sent just five days after the disclosure, suggesting a causal link.
- The tribunal found the claimant had a 'pretty good chance' of success at the final hearing.
No compensation was awarded at this stage as interim relief is a reinstatement order, not a damages award.
Lessons & takeaways
- If you make a protected disclosure and are dismissed soon after, the timing can strongly support a whistleblowing claim.
- Employers should ensure any performance concerns are documented and raised before a protected disclosure, not after.
- Interim relief is available for whistleblowing dismissals and can restore your job while you wait for the full hearing.
A short service, a quick dismissal
The claimant had only been working for Wren Music for eight months when he raised concerns about fire safety at the company's premises. He emailed his worries to management on 27 July 2022. Just five days later, he received a letter scheduling a formal probation review that could lead to dismissal. The review went ahead, and he was dismissed on 14 October.
At the interim relief hearing, the tribunal noted that no performance concerns had been raised before the disclosure. The claimant's four-month review in June was positive, and he had received praise for his work. The sudden shift to a probation process so soon after the disclosure raised a clear red flag.
What the employer could have done differently
Wren Music accepted that the claimant's email was a protected disclosure. But they argued that the dismissal was due to performance issues that emerged later. The tribunal was not convinced. If the employer had genuine performance concerns, they should have documented them before the disclosure and followed a fair capability process. Instead, the timing suggested the disclosure was the real reason for the dismissal.
Why this matters
This case shows that even employees with short service can succeed in whistleblowing claims if the evidence points to a causal link between the disclosure and the dismissal. The interim relief test is a high bar — a 'pretty good chance' of success — but the tribunal found it was met here. For anyone considering a whistleblowing claim, the key is to gather evidence of the disclosure and any subsequent treatment, especially if the employer's stated reason for dismissal appears to be a pretext.
Similar cases
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.
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.