Interim relief refused after disputed conversation about authorising officer role
A Senior Mobility Specialist who resigned after allegedly being pressured to take on an authorising officer role failed to win interim relief for automatic unfair dismissal. The tribunal found she did not have a 'pretty good chance' of success.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #interim-relief
- #protected-disclosure
- #constructive-dismissal
- #authorising-officer-role
- #conflicting-evidence
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as a Senior Mobility Specialist from 21 February 2022 to 24 April 2023.
- She made a risk report on 13 April 2023 alleging the respondent's 'employee of record' model breached Home Office rules.
- She resigned on 24 April 2023, claiming constructive dismissal after being asked to act as authorising officer.
- The respondent disputed the claimant's account of the conversation about the authorising officer role.
- The tribunal found it not likely that the claimant would succeed at final hearing on her section 103A claim.
Timeline
-
Employment started
Claimant commenced employment as Senior Mobility Specialist.
-
Risk report submitted
Claimant submitted a risk ticket alleging the respondent's EOR model was prohibited under Home Office rules.
-
Alleged conversation with Ms Sutherlin
Claimant alleges she was asked to be authorising officer and told refusal would impact career progression.
-
WhatsApp conversation with former colleague
Claimant recounted the conversation with Ms Sutherlin to a former colleague via WhatsApp.
-
Resignation
Claimant resigned with effect from 24 April 2023, citing constructive dismissal.
-
Claim presented
Claimant submitted her claim to the tribunal, including an application for interim relief.
-
Interim relief hearing
Hearing held by CVP before Employment Judge Rice-Birchall.
-
Judgment on interim relief
Tribunal refused the interim relief application, finding it not likely the claimant would succeed.
-
Reconsideration application
Claimant applied for reconsideration of the judgment.
-
Reconsideration refused
Employment Judge Rice-Birchall refused the reconsideration application.
The legal issue
Whether the claimant had a 'pretty good chance' of succeeding at final hearing on her claim of automatic unfair dismissal for making protected disclosures, such that interim relief should be granted.
The outcome
The tribunal refused the claimant's application for interim relief.
- The claimant alleged she was constructively dismissed after being asked to act as authorising officer, which she believed would breach Home Office rules.
- The respondent disputed the claimant's account of the conversation, and the tribunal found the evidence not sufficiently strong to meet the 'pretty good chance' test.
- No compensation was awarded as the interim relief application was refused.
Lessons & takeaways
- Interim relief requires a high threshold: you must show a 'pretty good chance' of winning at final hearing, not just a plausible claim.
- Conflicting evidence on key conversations can undermine an interim relief application, especially when there is no contemporaneous record.
- Resigning before giving your employer a chance to respond to concerns may weaken a constructive dismissal claim.
- Making a protected disclosure does not automatically protect you from all consequences; the disclosure must be the principal reason for any detriment.
What this case shows
This case illustrates the high bar for interim relief in automatic unfair dismissal claims. The claimant, a Senior Mobility Specialist with 14 months' service, resigned after a conversation in which she said she was told to take on an authorising officer role or risk harming her career. She believed the role would breach Home Office rules and had previously raised concerns about the company's 'employee of record' model.
However, the respondent's director gave a different account of the conversation. The tribunal, without hearing oral evidence, had to decide whether the claimant had a 'pretty good chance' of winning at final hearing. It concluded she did not, largely because the factual dispute could not be resolved at this early stage.
What could have been done differently
The claimant resigned immediately after the conversation, without giving the employer a chance to clarify or resolve her concerns. A formal grievance or a request for written clarification might have provided stronger evidence. Additionally, the lack of a contemporaneous note of the conversation made it harder to counter the respondent's version.
Why this matters
Interim relief is designed to protect whistleblowers from being dismissed while their claim is pending. But it is not automatic. Employees considering resignation should be aware that the tribunal will scrutinise the strength of their evidence at an early stage. A disputed account of a single conversation, without supporting documentation, is unlikely to meet the 'pretty good chance' test.
Similar cases
Sales manager's constructive dismissal claim over contractual terms fails
A sales manager who resigned after raising concerns about standard contractual terms lost his unfair dismissal claim when the tribunal found his disclosures were not protected.
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.
Care worker resigned after 'so bipolar' comment and sudden role change: constructive dismissal claim allowed to proceed
A care assessment officer who was told she was 'so bipolar' and had her role changed with less than 24 hours' notice has been allowed to add protected disclosure claims to her constructive dismissal case.
Registered Nurse lost constructive dismissal claim over protected disclosure and discrimination
A tribunal dismissed all claims by a dementia ward nurse who resigned after suspension, finding no link between his protected disclosure and the employer's actions.