Background
Mr Duffy began working in the respondent hotel business’s food and beverage team on 10 November 2025. Following an incident at the premises on 25 November, when police were called, he said he reported to his manager that fire-escape doors had been left open and that building security was compromised, creating serious health, safety and welfare concerns for guests and staff.
He was dismissed on 28 November 2025 and claimed that the disclosure was the reason. The employer denied that any protected disclosure had been made and said it had decided on 22 November, during Mr Duffy’s probationary period, that he would not meet the required standards. The Glasgow Employment Tribunal refused interim relief, reasoning that there were significant factual and credibility disputes about both the alleged disclosure and the timing and reason for dismissal.
The Court’s Holding
The Employment Appeal Tribunal allowed Mr Duffy’s appeal. It held that the tribunal had treated the existence of factual disputes as determinative, instead of making the required expedited and summary assessment of whether Mr Duffy had a “pretty good chance” of succeeding in his whistleblowing dismissal claim.
The EAT rejected a separate perversity challenge based on a recording of discussions with the employer’s managers. But it upheld the inadequate-reasons ground because the tribunal had not referred to or addressed the recording/transcript, which was important evidence requiring consideration in the overall assessment. The EAT remitted the interim-relief application to the same tribunal; it could not decide the application itself without making a factual assessment that was for the tribunal.
Key Takeaways
- Interim relief in a whistleblowing dismissal case requires a claimant to show a “pretty good chance” of success, a high threshold.
- Factual disputes do not automatically defeat an interim-relief application; the tribunal must still make a summary assessment on the material available.
- A tribunal must give sufficient reasons addressing material evidence, including an important contemporaneous recording or transcript.
Why It Matters
The decision clarifies that the urgent and summary character of interim-relief applications does not permit a tribunal simply to decline relief because credibility issues exist. It must assess how the central disputes appear on the available material, while avoiding findings that would improperly bind the eventual merits tribunal.
The case also illustrates the significance of contemporaneous evidence in whistleblowing disputes and the limited role of the EAT: where correction would require fresh factual assessment, the proper course is remittal rather than the EAT substituting its own decision.