Software engineer's interim relief bid fails after resignation retraction refused
A software engineer who tried to retract her resignation the same day she sent it could not show she had a 'pretty good chance' of proving whistleblowing dismissal. The tribunal dismissed her interim relief application.
2 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as a software engineer from 1 June 2020 to 17 December 2021.
- The claimant resigned by email on 17 November 2021, citing a toxic work environment and impact on mental health.
- The claimant attempted to retract her resignation later that day, but the respondent refused to accept the retraction.
- The claimant applied for interim relief under section 128 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, claiming she was dismissed for making protected disclosures.
- The tribunal dismissed the interim relief application, finding the claimant did not have a pretty good chance of establishing dismissal or that protected disclosures were the principal reason.
Timeline
-
Employment start
Claimant began employment as a software engineer at Google UK Limited.
-
First resignation threat
Claimant emailed manager stating she wanted to quit due to mental stress and stereotype at work.
-
Formal resignation notice
Claimant sent a detailed email titled 'Raise notice to resign from the job', raising concerns about management failings.
-
Meeting about resignation
Respondent discussed claimant's resignation and asked for a decision by 25 October 2021.
-
Investigation meeting
Respondent held a meeting with claimant regarding her use of Slack messaging system.
-
IA onsite talk
Respondent conducted an IA onsite training talk which included a video comparing autistic children to chimpanzees.
-
Resignation email
Claimant emailed respondent stating 'I would like to resign my post given the toxic work environment and its impact on my mental well-being.'
-
Attempted retraction
Claimant emailed later that evening stating she did not officially resign and wanted to appeal the investigation.
-
Resignation accepted
Respondent confirmed acceptance of resignation and refused to allow retraction.
-
Claim presented
Claimant presented claim form including claims for disability discrimination, constructive dismissal, whistleblowing, and interim relief.
-
Employment ended
Claimant's employment ended by reason of resignation.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the claimant had a 'pretty good chance' of succeeding at a full hearing that she was constructively dismissed for whistleblowing, which would entitle her to interim relief (reinstatement or re-engagement pending the full hearing).
The outcome
The tribunal dismissed the application for interim relief. The key reason was that the claimant could not show a 'pretty good chance' of establishing that the reason for her dismissal was her protected disclosures. The tribunal noted that the claimant had first threatened to resign in October 2021, before any alleged disclosures, and that her resignation email did not mention whistleblowing. The respondent's refusal to accept her retraction was not itself a dismissal.
No compensation was awarded as this was an interim relief application only.
Lessons & takeaways
- Interim relief is a high bar: you must show a 'pretty good chance' of winning the full whistleblowing claim, not just a reasonable one.
- Resignation emails are final in law unless the employer agrees to retract them; think carefully before sending.
- If you are considering a whistleblowing claim, ensure your resignation letter explicitly links the decision to the protected disclosures.
- A history of prior resignation threats can undermine a later claim that the final resignation was caused by whistleblowing.
This case illustrates the difficulties of obtaining interim relief in whistleblowing claims, particularly where the employee has resigned. The claimant, a software engineer with Google UK Limited, resigned by email citing a 'toxic work environment' and impact on her mental health. She attempted to retract the resignation hours later, but Google refused to accept the retraction. She then claimed she had been constructively dismissed for making protected disclosures.
The interim relief hurdle
Interim relief is an emergency remedy that can reinstate an employee pending a full hearing, but only if the tribunal thinks the claimant has a 'pretty good chance' of winning. Here, the tribunal found that the claimant's case fell well short. The timeline showed she had first threatened to resign in October 2021, before any of the alleged disclosures. Her actual resignation email did not mention whistleblowing, and the respondent had accepted it in good faith.
The tribunal also noted that the claimant had raised concerns internally, but these did not appear to be the reason for her resignation. The respondent's refusal to allow retraction was not a dismissal – the resignation stood, and the claimant had not been forced out by any protected disclosure.
What could have been done differently?
For the claimant, the key misstep was resigning without a clear link to whistleblowing. A resignation that is not explicitly tied to a protected disclosure is unlikely to be seen as a dismissal for that reason. For employers, this case is a reminder that accepting a resignation promptly can be a safe course, but they should still consider whether the employee has raised protected disclosures and whether those might have prompted the resignation.
Why this matters
This case shows that interim relief is not a routine remedy. Employees who believe they have been forced out for whistleblowing should seek legal advice before resigning, and ensure their resignation letter makes the connection clear. Employers can take comfort that a straightforward resignation, even if later retracted, will not easily be converted into a whistleblowing dismissal claim at the interim stage.
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.
Constructive dismissal claim fails over effective date of termination and ACAS document admissibility
A Sales Support Coordinator's constructive unfair dismissal claim was dismissed after the tribunal ruled the effective date of termination was her resignation date, making ACAS early conciliation documents irrelevant and inadmissible.
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.
Staff nurse's constructive dismissal claim over whistleblowing fails
A tribunal has dismissed all claims brought by a Band 5 staff nurse against Lewisham and Greenwich NHS Trust, including constructive dismissal, whistleblowing detriment, and discrimination on grounds of race, age, and religion.