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.
2 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #interim-relief
- #whistleblowing
- #protected-disclosure
- #data-protection-officer
- #strike-out
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as a Data Protection Officer from 16 June 2021 to 2 March 2022.
- The claimant presented a claim for unfair dismissal based on protected disclosures and an application for interim relief.
- The interim relief application was dismissed because the claimant failed to show a pretty good chance of success.
- The claimant later failed to comply with case management orders and the claim was struck out.
- The respondent argued the claimant was dismissed for poor performance.
Timeline
-
Employment commenced
The claimant started work as a Data Protection Officer for the respondent.
-
First alleged disclosure
The claimant's chronology of events begins, spanning to 25 February 2022.
-
Reports made
The claimant made reports to the respondent in September 2021, which may constitute protected disclosures.
-
Further reports made
The claimant made additional reports in December 2021.
-
Employment terminated
The claimant was dismissed, effective 2 March 2022.
-
Claim presented
The claimant presented his claim to the Tribunal, including an application for interim relief.
-
Interim relief hearing
The Tribunal heard the interim relief application and dismissed it.
-
Reasons for interim relief decision
Employment Judge Batten dated the written reasons for dismissing the interim relief application.
-
Strike out warning
The Tribunal gave the claimant an opportunity to show cause why the claim should not be struck out.
-
Claim struck out
Employment Judge Ross struck out the claim due to non-compliance with orders and lack of active pursuit.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant had a 'pretty good chance' of succeeding in his claim that he was unfairly dismissed for making protected disclosures, in order to grant interim relief under section 128 of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed the interim relief application and later struck out the entire claim.
- The interim relief application failed because the claimant did not meet the high threshold of showing a 'pretty good chance' of success at a final hearing.
- The claim was subsequently struck out due to the claimant's failure to comply with case management orders and lack of active pursuit.
- No compensation was awarded as the claim was dismissed.
Lessons & takeaways
- Interim relief requires a high threshold – you must show a 'pretty good chance' of success, not just a reasonable prospect.
- Complying with tribunal orders is essential; failure to do so can result in your claim being struck out entirely.
- Presenting a clear and focused case at the interim relief stage is critical, especially when representing yourself.
- Whistleblowing claims must be supported by evidence that the protected disclosure was the principal reason for dismissal.
A promising start, a procedural end
This case illustrates how a whistleblowing unfair dismissal claim can unravel due to procedural missteps, even if the underlying allegations might have had some merit. The claimant, a Data Protection Officer with only nine months' service, alleged he was dismissed for making protected disclosures about data protection issues at The Veterinary Defence Society Limited. He applied for interim relief – a fast-track process that can reinstate or re-engage an employee pending a full hearing.
However, the tribunal found that the claimant had not shown a 'pretty good chance' of success, which is the high legal threshold for interim relief. The judge noted that the claimant's case was not sufficiently strong at that stage, and the application was dismissed. This left the claimant to pursue the full claim without the benefit of interim protection.
The importance of following tribunal rules
Matters then took a further turn for the worse. The claimant failed to comply with case management orders designed to prepare the case for a final hearing. Despite being given an opportunity to explain why the claim should not be struck out, the tribunal concluded that the claimant had not actively pursued the claim. As a result, the entire claim was struck out in September 2023, over a year after the interim relief hearing.
This outcome underscores a hard truth: even a potentially valid whistleblowing claim can be lost if procedural requirements are ignored. Tribunals expect parties to engage constructively with the process, and non-compliance can be fatal.
What this means for similar claims
For employees considering a whistleblowing claim, this case highlights two key points. First, interim relief is a powerful but demanding tool – you need strong evidence from the outset. Second, once a claim is lodged, strict adherence to tribunal directions is non-negotiable. Self-represented claimants, in particular, must be prepared to manage the procedural demands or seek advice to avoid their case being dismissed before it is heard on its merits.
Similar cases
Whistleblowing claim struck out: when the disclosure comes too late
Two warehouse operatives had their automatic unfair dismissal claims for whistleblowing struck out because the alleged breaches happened before they made their protected disclosure. The tribunal said the claims had no reasonable prospects of success.
Agency worker's whistleblowing claim: interim relief refused over employment status
An agency worker who claimed she was dismissed for whistleblowing had her interim relief application refused because she could not show a 'pretty good chance' of proving she was an employee of the respondent.
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.
Bid Architect fails to win interim relief over whistleblowing claim
A bid architect with nine months' service claimed his redundancy was a sham to cover up a protected disclosure. The tribunal refused interim relief, finding it unlikely that the principal reason for dismissal was whistleblowing.