Whistleblowing managing director loses interim relief bid after failing to provide death certificate
A managing director who claimed she was dismissed for whistleblowing saw her interim relief application refused and later had her entire claim struck out for failing to comply with an unless order to provide her mother's death certificate. She was also ordered to pay £3,000 in costs.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as managing director from 31 January 2022 until dismissal on 14 July 2022.
- The claimant made an application for interim relief on grounds of whistleblowing dismissal.
- The interim relief hearing took place on 10 November 2022 and was refused.
- The claimant failed to provide her mother's death certificate despite multiple orders, leading to dismissal of the claim.
- The respondent was awarded costs of £3,000 due to the claimant's unreasonable conduct.
Timeline
-
Employment started
Claimant began employment as managing director of Key Horizons Limited.
-
Dismissal
Claimant was dismissed from her role.
-
Claim presented
Claimant presented ET1 claim form for whistleblowing detriment and dismissal.
-
Postponed interim relief hearing
Interim relief hearing due on 5 August 2022 was postponed at claimant's request, citing mother's death.
-
Interim relief hearing
Hearing on interim relief application; application refused.
-
Judgment on interim relief
Written judgment issued refusing interim relief.
-
Unless order issued
Unless order requiring claimant to provide mother's death certificate.
-
Claim dismissed
Claim dismissed due to failure to comply with unless order.
-
Costs judgment
Claimant ordered to pay £3,000 costs to respondent.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant had a 'pretty good chance' of succeeding in her whistleblowing dismissal claim, which is the threshold for granting interim relief under section 128 of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
The outcome
The tribunal refused the claimant's application for interim relief, finding she did not meet the high threshold of having a 'pretty good chance' of success at a full hearing.
The claimant's claim was later struck out entirely after she failed to comply with an unless order requiring her to provide her mother's death certificate, which she had cited as a reason for earlier delays.
The respondent was awarded costs of £3,000 due to the claimant's unreasonable conduct in the proceedings.
Lessons & takeaways
- Interim relief is a high hurdle: you must show a 'pretty good chance' of success, not just a reasonable one.
- Failure to comply with tribunal orders, especially unless orders, can result in your entire claim being struck out.
- Litigants in person are still expected to follow procedural rules; unreasonable conduct can lead to a costs order against you.
- If you rely on a family bereavement to explain delays, be prepared to provide evidence such as a death certificate promptly.
A short-lived role and a whistleblowing claim
The claimant was employed as managing director of Key Horizons Limited for just under six months before her dismissal in July 2022. She claimed she had been dismissed for making protected disclosures and applied for interim relief — a fast-track remedy that can require the employer to reinstate or re-engage the employee pending a full hearing.
At the interim relief hearing in November 2022, the tribunal refused her application. The threshold for interim relief is high: the claimant must show a 'pretty good chance' of succeeding at trial. The tribunal concluded that she did not meet that standard.
Procedural failings and a struck-out claim
Matters then took a further turn. The claimant had requested a postponement of an earlier hearing date in August 2022, citing her mother's death. However, despite multiple requests from the tribunal, she failed to provide a death certificate. In December 2022, an unless order was issued: provide the certificate or the claim would be struck out. The claimant did not comply, and in March 2023 her entire claim was dismissed.
The respondent later applied for costs, arguing that the claimant's conduct in failing to comply with orders was unreasonable. In April 2024, the tribunal agreed and ordered the claimant to pay £3,000 in costs.
What this case shows
This case illustrates how procedural missteps can derail a claim even before the merits are fully tested. For claimants, the message is clear: tribunal orders must be taken seriously, and any reasons for delay must be supported by evidence. For employers, it shows that robust case management can bring a weak claim to a swift end, and that costs orders are available where a litigant acts unreasonably.
The case also highlights the specific difficulty of obtaining interim relief in whistleblowing cases. The 'pretty good chance' test is deliberately demanding, and claimants should seek legal advice before making such an application.
Similar cases
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.
Whistleblowing unfair dismissal claim struck out after interim relief refused
A Data Protection Officer who alleged he was dismissed for making protected disclosures saw his claim struck out after failing to comply with tribunal orders. His interim relief application was dismissed for not meeting the high threshold of a 'pretty good chance' of success.
Whistleblowing dismissal: interim relief refused for former employee
A former employee who claimed she was automatically unfairly dismissed for making 11 protected disclosures has been refused interim relief by the tribunal, which found it unlikely she would succeed at the final hearing.
Social worker's whistleblowing and constructive dismissal claim rejected
A registered social worker who resigned and claimed constructive unfair dismissal after allegedly blowing the whistle has had his claim thrown out. The tribunal found no protected disclosure and no fundamental breach of contract, and ordered him to pay £2,700 in costs.