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.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #interim-relief
- #whistleblowing
- #protected-disclosure
- #gross-misconduct
- #oral-disclosures
Key facts
- The claimant was dismissed on 4 May 2023 following a disciplinary hearing.
- The respondent cited two findings of gross misconduct: comments made in a staff network meeting and accessing confidential information.
- The claimant alleges she made 11 protected disclosures between July 2022 and February 2023.
- The claimant was suspended on 18 October 2022 after posting comments in a Teams chat.
- The respondent appointed an external investigator who considered both misconduct and whistleblowing concerns.
Timeline
-
First alleged protected disclosure
Claimant raised concerns about workplace stress in a written risk assessment to Christopher Barton.
-
Second alleged protected disclosure
Claimant orally raised concerns about discrimination, harassment, and victimisation to Christopher Barton.
-
Third alleged protected disclosure
Claimant orally raised workplace stress concerns to Christopher Barton.
-
Fourth alleged protected disclosure
Claimant orally raised workplace stress concerns to Christopher Barton and Sarah Kershaw.
-
Fifth alleged protected disclosure
Claimant orally raised concerns about discrimination, harassment, and victimisation to Christopher Barton.
-
Sixth alleged protected disclosure
Claimant orally raised workplace stress concerns to Christopher Barton.
-
Seventh alleged protected disclosure
Claimant emailed Karen Grave about concerns.
-
Eighth alleged protected disclosure
Claimant orally raised workplace stress concerns to Christopher Barton.
-
Ninth alleged protected disclosure and misconduct incident
Claimant emailed Karen Grave and also made postings in a Minority Ethnic Group staff network meeting, which later formed part of the misconduct allegations.
-
Tenth alleged protected disclosure and suspension
Claimant made an anonymous disclosure via Navex (external whistleblowing tool) and was suspended from work.
-
Eleventh alleged protected disclosure
Claimant emailed the CEO about concerns.
-
Disciplinary hearing
Claimant attended a disciplinary meeting regarding the misconduct allegations.
-
Dismissal
Claimant was dismissed for gross misconduct (comments in staff network meeting and accessing confidential information).
-
Claim presented
Claimant presented her claim for automatic unfair dismissal to the employment tribunal.
-
Interim relief hearing
The tribunal heard and refused the claimant's application for interim relief.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether it was likely that the former employee would succeed at the final hearing in showing that she was automatically unfairly dismissed for making protected disclosures, and therefore whether interim relief should be granted.
The outcome
The tribunal refused the application for interim relief.
The key reason was that the tribunal was not satisfied that it was likely the former employee would succeed at the final hearing. The tribunal considered that the respondent had cited two findings of gross misconduct as the reason for dismissal, and the former employee had not yet shown that the protected disclosures were the principal reason.
No compensation was awarded as this was an interim relief application.
Lessons & takeaways
- Interim relief is a high bar — you must show it is likely you will win at the final hearing, not just that you have a reasonable case.
- Keep clear records of all protected disclosures, including dates, recipients, and content, to strengthen your claim.
- If you are dismissed for alleged misconduct, be prepared to argue that the real reason was whistleblowing, not the misconduct itself.
- Seek legal advice early — representing yourself in interim relief hearings can be challenging, especially with procedural deadlines.
What this case shows in practice
This case illustrates the difficulty of obtaining interim relief in whistleblowing claims. The former employee alleged she made 11 protected disclosures about workplace stress, discrimination, and harassment between July 2022 and February 2023. She was dismissed in May 2023 for gross misconduct — comments made in a staff network meeting and accessing confidential information. The tribunal had to decide whether it was likely she would succeed at the final hearing in proving that the real reason for her dismissal was the disclosures, not the misconduct.
What the respondent could have done differently
Surrey County Council appointed an external investigator who considered both the misconduct and whistleblowing concerns. The tribunal noted that the respondent had a disciplinary process that led to dismissal. However, the former employee argued that the protected disclosures were the real reason. The tribunal was not persuaded at this stage, but the case will proceed to a full hearing where more evidence may emerge.
Why the result matters for similar claims
Interim relief is a powerful remedy — if granted, it can require the employer to reinstate the employee or pay full pay until the final hearing. But the threshold is high: the tribunal must think it is likely the employee will win. This case shows that simply alleging protected disclosures is not enough; there must be strong evidence linking the disclosures to the dismissal. For employees considering a whistleblowing claim, it is crucial to document every disclosure and to seek legal advice promptly, as the seven-day deadline for interim relief applications is strict.
Similar cases
Dismissed for using visitor parking permits: a flawed process that cost the council £35,000
A deputy manager with 16 years' service was dismissed for gross misconduct over visitor parking permits. The tribunal found the process unfair and awarded £35,318.56, but rejected her whistleblowing claim.
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.
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.
Practice Business Manager dismissed for claiming £15,900 overtime from COVID-19 fund without authorisation
A Practice Business Manager with 16 years' service was fairly dismissed for gross misconduct after claiming overtime from the COVID-19 Support Fund without partner approval. The tribunal rejected her claims of whistleblowing and unfair dismissal.