Interim relief refused: probation dismissal for poor performance not linked to alleged protected disclosure
An office administrator dismissed during her probation period failed to convince a tribunal that her refusal to sign a loan document was a protected disclosure. The interim relief application was refused.
1 min read · Last updated 19 May 2026
Case details
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as an office administrator from 3 July 2023 to 13 July 2023.
- The claimant was dismissed during her probation period for poor performance.
- The claimant alleged she was dismissed for refusing to sign a 'fake contract' to support a loan application.
- The respondent denied the claims and stated the dismissal was due to poor timekeeping, failing to follow instructions, negative attitude, and demanding a season ticket loan.
- The claimant did not have two years' qualifying service for an ordinary unfair dismissal claim.
Timeline
-
Employment started
The claimant began working as an office administrator for Manceps Limited.
-
Dismissal
The claimant was dismissed by email, citing failure of probation period and not fitting into company culture.
-
Claim presented
The claimant presented a claim for automatically unfair dismissal due to making a protected disclosure, and applied for interim relief.
-
Interim relief hearing
The Employment Tribunal heard the application for interim relief by video.
-
Judgment on interim relief
The tribunal refused the application for interim relief, finding it not likely that the claimant would succeed at a final hearing.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether it was likely that the claimant would succeed at a final hearing in establishing that she was automatically unfairly dismissed for making a protected disclosure, and whether interim relief should be granted.
The outcome
The tribunal refused the application for interim relief.
- The office administrator had been employed for only 10 days and did not have two years' qualifying service for an ordinary unfair dismissal claim.
- She alleged she was dismissed for refusing to sign a 'fake contract' to support a loan application, which she said was a protected disclosure.
- The employer provided evidence of four specific performance issues: poor timekeeping, failing to follow instructions, negative attitude, and demanding a season ticket loan.
- The tribunal concluded that the claimant's case was not likely to succeed at a final hearing, so no order for reinstatement, re-engagement, or continuation of employment was made.
Lessons & takeaways
- Employees with less than two years' service cannot bring ordinary unfair dismissal claims, but can still bring automatically unfair dismissal claims for protected disclosures.
- Interim relief is a high bar: you must show it is 'likely' you will win at a final hearing, not just that you have an arguable case.
- Employers should document performance issues clearly from the start, especially during probation, to defend against whistleblowing allegations.
- A refusal to sign a document may not automatically amount to a protected disclosure if it does not disclose information tending to show a relevant failure.
A short-lived employment ends in dispute
The office administrator had been employed for just 10 days when she was dismissed by email, told she had failed her probation period and did not fit into the company culture. She claimed the real reason was her refusal to sign a document she believed was a 'fake contract' to support a loan application. The employer, Manceps Limited, said the dismissal was purely about poor performance: timekeeping, failing to follow instructions, a negative attitude, and repeatedly asking for a season ticket loan.
The interim relief hurdle
Because the claimant had less than two years' service, she could not bring an ordinary unfair dismissal claim. Her only route was to argue that she was automatically unfairly dismissed for making a protected disclosure. She applied for interim relief, which would have required the employer to continue paying her until a full hearing. But the tribunal must be satisfied that it is 'likely' the claimant will win at trial — a much higher test than simply having a reasonable case.
Why the application failed
The tribunal considered the employer's detailed evidence of performance concerns raised on three separate occasions during the short employment. It noted that the claimant's allegation about the loan document did not clearly amount to a protected disclosure under whistleblowing law. The judge concluded that it was not likely the claimant would succeed at a final hearing, and refused the application. No order was made for reinstatement or continuation of the contract.
What this means for similar claims
This case shows the difficulty of bringing a whistleblowing claim when an employer has contemporaneous evidence of performance issues. Employees considering interim relief should be aware that the threshold is high — a 'likely' win, not just a possible one. Employers, meanwhile, should ensure that any performance concerns are documented and communicated clearly, as this can be crucial in defending against allegations of automatic unfair dismissal.
Similar cases
Interim relief denied: Construction manager's whistleblower claim fails high threshold
A construction manager who claimed she was dismissed for raising health and safety concerns has had her interim relief application rejected. The tribunal found factual disputes meant she did not meet the high threshold for interim relief.
Interim relief refused: redundancy decision made before protected disclosures
A senior contracts attorney lost her bid for interim relief after the tribunal found her redundancy was decided before she made protected disclosures about sanctions risks. The claim was dismissed.
Furniture installer dismissed after raising phone mount safety concern: interim relief revoked
A furniture installer who was dismissed shortly after asking for a phone mount and charger to navigate safely lost his unfair dismissal claim when the tribunal revoked an earlier interim relief order and later dismissed the case.
Short-service whistleblower fails to win interim relief after dismissal for unauthorised absence
A machine tool maintenance technician with 11 months' service was refused interim relief after being dismissed for unauthorised absence. The tribunal found he did not have a 'pretty good chance' of proving his whistleblowing claim, but allowed the case to proceed to a full hearing.