X v I Farook and CFP Energy (UK) Ltd: 6038891/2025
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Case No 6038891/2025
Between
XClaimantMr A BachuRespondent
Before
Employment Judge Mr J S BurnsIn person for claimantMr A Bachu for respondentDate 17 November 2025
JUDGMENT
[1]The claim for interim relief fails and is dismissed[2]Under Rule 49, and until the next hearing in this matter, the Claimant is to be referred to in all pleadings, judgments and orders as “X”. Note. Oral reasons were provided during the hearing. No written reasons will be provided unless they are requested in writing within 14 days of the date this documents is sent to the parties. J S Burns[1]At the hearing on 17/11/25 the Claimant requested that no written reasons should be issued. I gave oral reasons then. He subsequently applied later on 17/11/25 and 19/11/25 for reconsideration of the judgment. I refused that application on 1/12/25 on the grounds that there was no reasonable prospect of the judgment being varied or revoked. I offered to provide further written reasons if the Claimant stated that he wanted these, (despite the fact that he had previously stated that he did not want written reasons for the refusal of interim relief). On 14/1/26 he requested full reasons. This request was referred to me today.[2]At the hearing on 17/11/2025 I was referred to a bundle of 78 pages, witness statements of Mr Irfan Farook and Ms Aisling McSwiggan and Respondent’s written submissions drafted by Mr A Bachu of Counsel. I also received oral submissions from both parties[3]Under section 129(1) ERA 1996, an application for interim relief should be granted if it appears to the Tribunal that it is likely that on determining the complaint to which the application relates the Tribunal will find that reason or principal reason for dismissal was one of the statutory automatically unfair reasons . “Likely” in this context means that C must show that case has “a pretty good chance” of success, which means that something better than likelihood on the balance of probability (i.e. better than a 51% chance): Taplin v C Shippam Ltd [1978] ICR 1068, as approved and followed in London City Airport Ltd v Chackro [2013] IRLR 610 at para 10.[4]The ET must be satisfied that the Claimant is “likely” to succeed on each necessary aspect of his claim, before relief can be granted.[5]The application falls to be considered on a summary basis. The Employment Judge’s role is to do the best he can with such material as the parties are able to deploy by way of documents and argument in support of their respective cases, and to make as good an assessment as he is promptly able of whether the Claimant is likely to succeed in a claim for unfair dismissal based on one of the relevant grounds. He must make an expeditious summary assessment as to how the matter looks to him on the material that he has. This will involve a far less detailed scrutiny of the respective cases of each of the parties and their evidence than will be ultimately undertaken at the full hearing of the claim.[6]Interim relief is potentially available in two possible circumstances relied on by the Claimant in this case namely:• if the reason or principal reason for the dismissal is that the employee made a protected disclosure: s103A ERA 1996 and• If the reason or principal reason for the dismissal was grounds relating to union membership or activities as set out in section 152(1) ERA 1996.[7]It is common to both types of reasons that the Claimant must have been an employee of the Respondent against which interim relief is claimed.[8]The Respondents submitted that the Claimant had not been an employee of either of them.[9]The Claimant did not suggest that Mr Irfan Farook (R1) had been his employer. His claim for automatic unfair dismissal and interim relief was against R2 (CFP ENERGY (UK) LTD).[10]The Claimant had failed to address the question of his status (ie whether he had been an employee of either Respondent) in his ET1.[11]He failed at the IR hearing on 17/11/25 to provide any evidence in support of any claim by him to have been an employee of either Respondent.[12]I did not make any final determination of these points but the evidence available to me in the bundle and witness statements suggested that :• The Claimant had been engaged through Michael Page (“MP”) as a temporary agency worker, not as a permanent employee.• He was subjected to MP’s terms and conditions as a temporary agency worker, which contain provisions consistent with the absence of a contract of employment with the Respondent.• He appeared to have engaged himself, through his own limited company (AL Capital management Limited) for an 8-week assignment and signed a confidentiality agreement on behalf of his company• He had not shown a contract of any kind between himself and either Respondent• MP had been involved throughout the engagement (regarding such matters as pay and responding to any non-attendance)[13]For the above reasons I thought it was unlikely than the Claimant had been an employee of either Respondent.[14]Therefore, even if the termination of his engagement was because of TU membership/activities or whistleblowing (as to both of which I did not form any view) he did not have “a pretty good chance” of success in his automatic unfair dismissal claim, and therefore I dismissed his claim for interim relief.[15]The Claimant’s reconsideration application dated 17/11/2025 contained a number of submissions none of which changed my view as stated above and chief of which was “Interim relief under s.128 ERA 1996, for an alleged s.103A whistleblowing dismissal, applies to workers within the meaning of s.43K ERA, not only to employees.” This submission is incorrect.[16]The Claimant followed up on 19/11/2025 with a further email reading as follows: “For interim relief in the UK whistleblowing claims, a claimant does not need any certificate from a trade union. The only requirement is that the claimant applies within 7 days of dismissal and shows a pretty good chance the dismissal was for making a protected disclosure. For dismissal claims based on trade union membership or activities (under TULRCA), no trade union-issued certificate is required. The claimant just needs to allege that the principal reason for dismissal was their union membership/activities; no certification step exists”. This submission did not engage with the operative reason why I refused the interim relief application, but was addressed to an unrelated TU-related submission made by the Respondent at the interim relief hearing.[17]The Claimant in his reconsideration application did not put forward anything to suggest that, contrary to the view I had reached on 17/11/25, it was likely that he had been an employee of either Respondent. Hence there was no reasonable prospect of the IR judgment being varied or revoked, and hence I refused the application for reconsideration. J S Burns