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.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #interim-relief
- #protected-disclosure
- #redundancy-sham
- #whistleblowing
- #bid-architect
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as a Bid Architect from 28 June 2022 until dismissal on 17 March 2023.
- The claimant made oral disclosures on 8 December 2022, 19 January 2023, and 25 January 2023 about alleged concealment of a 10% discount in a deal with GSK.
- The respondent claimed the dismissal was due to redundancy, citing a downturn in multi-faceted bids.
- The claimant accepted that the role he was recruited for was never really available or undertaken by him.
- The employment judge found the claimant did not have a reasonable belief that his disclosure tended to show a legal obligation breach.
- The judge concluded it was not likely that the redundancy process was a sham.
Timeline
-
Employment started
Claimant began employment as a Bid Architect with ONNEC Group UK Limited.
-
First disclosure
Claimant made an oral disclosure to senior managers about alleged concealment of a 10% discount in a deal with GSK.
-
Second disclosure
Claimant repeated the same oral disclosure to senior managers.
-
Third disclosure
Claimant made the same oral disclosure again to senior managers.
-
Dismissal
Claimant's employment was terminated, with the respondent citing redundancy.
-
Claim presented
Claimant presented a claim for unfair dismissal, automatically unfair dismissal for protected disclosure, and protected disclosure detriment.
-
Interim relief hearing
Hearing before Employment Judge Akhtar to determine the interim relief application.
-
Judgment issued
Employment Judge Akhtar refused the interim relief application and dismissed the claim.
The legal issue
Whether it was likely that a final hearing would find that the claimant was automatically unfairly dismissed because the principal reason for his dismissal was his protected disclosure, rather than redundancy.
The outcome
The tribunal refused the claimant's application for interim relief and dismissed the claim.
The key reasons were:
- The claimant did not have a reasonable belief that his disclosure (about alleged concealment of a 10% discount in a deal with GSK) tended to show a breach of a legal obligation.
- The tribunal found it was not likely that the redundancy process was a sham; the respondent had a downturn in multi-faceted bids, and the claimant accepted that the role he was recruited for was never really available.
- No compensation was awarded as the claim was dismissed.
Lessons & takeaways
- Interim relief is a high bar: you must show it is 'likely' that a final hearing will find the principal reason for dismissal was a protected disclosure.
- A disclosure must be made in the reasonable belief that it tends to show a breach of a legal obligation, health and safety danger, or other specified matter.
- If your role is genuinely redundant and you accept that the role was never really available, it weakens a claim that redundancy is a sham.
- Claimants with less than two years' service can still bring automatic unfair dismissal claims for whistleblowing, but must still meet the legal tests.
A short-lived role and a disputed disclosure
The claimant worked as a Bid Architect for ONNEC Group UK Limited for just nine months. During that time, he made three oral disclosures to senior managers, alleging that the company had concealed a 10% discount in a deal with GSK. When he was dismissed in March 2023, the company said it was because of a downturn in multi-faceted bids. The claimant argued that the redundancy was a sham and that the real reason was his whistleblowing.
Why the interim relief application failed
At the interim relief hearing, the tribunal had to decide whether it was 'likely' that a final hearing would find the dismissal was automatically unfair because of a protected disclosure. The judge concluded that the claimant did not have a reasonable belief that his disclosure tended to show a breach of a legal obligation. The claimant had also accepted that the role he was recruited for was never really available or undertaken by him, which undermined his claim that the redundancy was a sham.
What this means for similar claims
This case shows that interim relief is a tough hurdle. The tribunal does not hear oral evidence at this stage and must predict the final outcome. Claimants need strong evidence that the principal reason for dismissal was the disclosure, not a genuine redundancy. For employers, the case confirms that a credible redundancy process, even for a short-serving employee, can defeat a whistleblowing claim if the disclosure does not meet the legal test.
Similar cases
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.
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.
Whistleblowing claims dismissed: council's breakdown of trust was genuine
A Community Development Manager who claimed she was dismissed for whistleblowing lost her case. The tribunal found the council's decision was due to an irretrievable breakdown in working relationships, not her protected disclosures.