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.
1 min read · Last updated 19 May 2026
Case details
Key facts
- The claimant was employed as a machine tool maintenance technician from 7 March 2022 until 16 February 2023.
- The claimant made four alleged protected disclosures between August and October 2022 concerning health, safety, and environmental issues.
- The claimant was summarily dismissed on 16 February 2023 for unauthorised absence.
- The claimant originally claimed dismissal on 2 February 2023 but later conceded and amended to 16 February 2023.
- The interim relief application was refused as the claimant did not have a pretty good chance of success.
- The tribunal found it had jurisdiction to hear the unfair dismissal claim because the amendment took effect on 23 February 2023.
Timeline
-
Employment started
Claimant began employment as a machine tool maintenance technician.
-
First alleged protected disclosure
Claimant orally raised concerns about storage of hazardous waste with Jaspal Roopra.
-
Second alleged protected disclosure
Claimant emailed Catherine O'Connor alleging exposure to harmful substances and environmental damage.
-
Third alleged protected disclosure
Claimant emailed Nick Greenway alleging falsification of a document.
-
Fourth alleged protected disclosure
Claimant emailed Bruce Wood alleging cover-up and failure to comply with legal obligations.
-
Unauthorised absence began
Claimant stopped attending work; pay was stopped.
-
Final written warning issued
Claimant received a final written warning and was required to return to work on 3 February 2023.
-
Claim presented
Claimant presented an ET1 claiming unfair dismissal with effective date of termination 2 February 2023.
-
Summary dismissal
Claimant was summarily dismissed for unauthorised absence.
-
Interim relief hearing and amendment
Employment Judge Quill refused interim relief but allowed amendment to rely on dismissal date of 16 February 2023.
The legal issue
Whether the claimant had a 'pretty good chance' of succeeding in his claim of automatic unfair dismissal for making protected disclosures, and whether the tribunal had jurisdiction to hear the claim when the original claim form gave the wrong dismissal date.
The outcome
The tribunal refused the application for interim relief, meaning the claimant will not be reinstated or re-engaged before the full hearing. However, it allowed the claimant to amend his claim to correct the dismissal date from 2 February 2023 to 16 February 2023, so the unfair dismissal claim can proceed.
Key reasons:
- The claimant's four alleged protected disclosures were made between August and October 2022, but he was not dismissed until February 2023 – a gap of several months.
- The employer dismissed for unauthorised absence, not for making disclosures.
- The claimant had only 11 months' service, so the employer's decision to dismiss for absence was not obviously unreasonable.
- The interim relief test ('pretty good chance') is a high bar, and the claimant did not meet it.
No compensation was awarded at this stage as the claim is ongoing.
Lessons & takeaways
- Interim relief is a high hurdle: you need a 'pretty good chance' of winning at the final hearing, not just a plausible claim.
- Short service can weaken a whistleblowing case if the employer has a clear non-discriminatory reason for dismissal, such as unauthorised absence.
- If you present a claim before you are actually dismissed, you may need to amend it later – tribunals can allow this if it's just and equitable.
- Making protected disclosures does not give you immunity from being dismissed for other genuine reasons, like failure to attend work.
This case shows the difficulty of winning interim relief in a whistleblowing claim, especially when the employee has only short service and the employer has a clear alternative reason for dismissal.
What happened
The claimant, a machine tool maintenance technician, raised concerns about hazardous waste, harmful substances, and alleged document falsification between August and October 2022. He stopped attending work in January 2023, and after a final written warning, was dismissed for unauthorised absence on 16 February 2023. He claimed the real reason was his whistleblowing.
Why interim relief was refused
The tribunal applied the 'pretty good chance' test – a higher standard than 'more likely than not'. It noted that the disclosures were made months before the dismissal, and the employer had focused on the unauthorised absence. With only 11 months' service, the employer's decision to dismiss for absence was not obviously outside the range of reasonable responses. The claimant therefore did not meet the threshold for interim relief.
What this means for similar claims
Whistleblowers should be aware that interim relief is rarely granted. The tribunal must be confident that the disclosure was the principal reason for dismissal – not just one factor. Short service can also make it harder to argue that the employer acted unreasonably. However, the tribunal did allow the claim to proceed to a full hearing, so the case is not over. Claimants should ensure their claim form is accurate from the start, as amendments can be complex.
Similar cases
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.
Interim relief refused for SHEQ Advisor dismissed after raising fire safety concerns
An employment tribunal refused interim relief to a probationary SHEQ Advisor who claimed she was automatically unfairly dismissed for raising fire safety concerns. The tribunal found she did not have a pretty good chance of proving the email was the principal reason for her dismissal.
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.