Case No 8000892/2026Venue EdinburghHearing 5 May 2026
Between
Mr I KhanClaimantBritannia Hotels LimitedRespondent
Before
Employment Judge A JonesMs K Stein, counsel for respondentDate 15 May 2026
REASONS
[1]The claimant lodged a claim against the respondent on 16 April 2026 alleging that he had been automatically unfairly dismissed because he had made a protected disclosure.[2]An application was also made in terms of sections 128-129 Employment Rights Act (‘ERA’) for interim relief. The claimant represented himself at the hearing today and the respondents were represented by counsel. No order for evidence to be heard was made and the application was determined on the basis of the evidence before the Tribunal and submissions of the parties.[3]Both parties lodged productions and referred to these productions in their submissions. No ET3 form has yet been lodged as this is not yet due.
Relevant law
[4]Section 128 Employment Rights Act 1996 (‘ERA’) provides that(1) An employee who presents a complaint to an employment tribunal that he has been unfairly dismissed and— (a) that the reason (or if more than one the principal reason) for the dismissal is one of those specified in— (i) section 100(1)(a) and (b), 101A(1)(d), 102(1), 103 or 103A, or (ii) paragraph 161(2) of Schedule A1 to the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, or (b) that the reason (or, if more than one, the principal reason) for which the employee was selected for dismissal was the one specified in the opening words of section 104F(1) and the condition in paragraph (a) or (b) of that subsection was met, may apply to the tribunal for interim relief.(2) The tribunal shall not entertain an application for interim relief unless it is presented to the tribunal before the end of the period of seven days immediately following the effective date of termination (whether before, on or after that date).(3) The tribunal shall determine the application for interim relief as soon as practicable after receiving the application.(4) The tribunal shall give to the employer not later than seven days before the date of the hearing a copy of the application together with notice of the date, time and place of the hearing.(5) The tribunal shall not exercise any power it has of postponing the hearing of an application for interim relief except where it is satisfied that special circumstances exist which justify it in doing so.[5]Section 129 sets out that(1) This section applies where, on hearing an employee's application for interim relief, it appears to the tribunal that it is likely that on determining the complaint to which the application relates the tribunal will find— (a) that the reason (or if more than one the principal reason) for the dismissal is one of those specified in— (i) section 100(1)(a) and (b), 101A(1)(d), 102(1), 103 or 103A, or (ii) paragraph 161(2) of Schedule A1 to the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, or (b) that the reason (or, if more than one, the principal reason) for which the employee was selected for dismissal was the one specified in the opening words of section 104F(1) and the condition in paragraph (a) or (b) of that subsection was met.(2) The tribunal shall announce its findings and explain to both parties (if present)— (a) what powers the tribunal may exercise on the application, and (b) in what circumstances it will exercise them.(3) The tribunal shall ask the employer (if present) whether he is willing, pending the determination or settlement of the complaint— (a) to reinstate the employee (that is, to treat him in all respects as if he had not been dismissed), or (b) if not, to re-engage him in another job on terms and conditions not less favourable than those which would have been applicable to him if he had not been dismissed.(4) For the purposes of subsection (3)(b) “terms and conditions not less favourable than those which would have been applicable to him if he had not been dismissed” means,as regards seniority, pension rights and other similar rights, that the period prior to the dismissal should be regarded as continuous with his employment following the dismissal.(5) If the employer states that he is willing to reinstate the employee, the tribunal shall make an order to that effect.(6) If the employer— (a) states that he is willing to re-engage the employee in another job, and (b) specifies the terms and conditions on which he is willing to do so, the tribunal shall ask the employee whether he is willing to accept the job on those terms and conditions.(7) If the employee is willing to accept the job on those terms and conditions, the tribunal shall make an order to that effect.(8) If the employee is not willing to accept the job on those terms and conditions— (a) where the tribunal is of the opinion that the refusal is reasonable, the tribunal shall make an order for the continuation of his contract of employment, and (b) otherwise, the tribunal shall make no order.(9) If on the hearing of an application for interim relief the employer— (a) fails to attend before the tribunal, or (b) states that he is unwilling either to reinstate or re-engage the employee as mentioned in subsection (3), the tribunal shall make an order for the continuation of the employee's contract of employment.[6]Section 43B ERA sets out what amounts to a protected or qualifying disclosure:(1) In this Part a “qualifying disclosure” means any disclosure of information which, in the reasonable belief of the worker making the disclosure, tends to show one or more of the following— (a) that a criminal offence has been committed, is being committed or is likely to be committed, (b) that a person has failed, is failing or is likely to fail to comply with any legal obligation to which he is subject, (c) that a miscarriage of justice has occurred, is occurring or is likely to occur, (d) that the health or safety of any individual has been, is being or is likely to be endangered, (e) that the environment has been, is being or is likely to be damaged, or (f) that information tending to show any matter falling within any one of the preceding paragraphs has been, is being or is likely to be deliberately concealed.(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), it is immaterial whether the relevant failure occurred, occurs or would occur in the United Kingdom or elsewhere, and whether the law applying to it is that of the United Kingdom or of any other country or territory.(3) A disclosure of information is not a qualifying disclosure if the person making the disclosure commits an offence by making it.(4) A disclosure of information in respect of which a claim to legal professional privilege (or, in Scotland, to confidentiality as between client and professional legal adviser) could be maintained in legal proceedings is not a qualifying disclosure if it is made by a person to whom the information had been disclosed in the course of obtaining legal advice.(5) In this Part “the relevant failure” , in relation to a qualifying disclosure, means the matter falling within paragraphs (a) to (f) of subsection (1).[7]Section 103A ERA provides that: “An employee who is dismissed shall be regarded for the purposes of this Part as unfairly dismissed if the reason (or, if more than one, the principal reason) for the dismissal is that the employee made a protected disclosure.”[8]As set out in London City Airport Ltd v Chacko 2013 IRLR 610, a Tribunal is required to carry out an “expeditious summary assessment” of the information before it in determining an application for interim relief. The test to be applied is whether “it is likely that on determining the complaint” the Tribunal will find that the reason or principal reason for dismissal is that which the employee has asserted. “likely” is taken to mean a “pretty good chance of success” (see also Taplin v C Shippam Ltd [1978] ICR 1068 and Ministry of Justice v Sarfraz [2011] IRLR 562).[9]In His Highness Sheikh Khalid Bin Saqr Al Qasimi v Ms T Robinson [2017] 12 WLUK 681, the EAT considered an application for interim relief in a case involving section 103A ERA and determined that it is each aspect of a claim which must meet that test in order for interim relief to be granted. Therefore, it is necessary to consider whether a claimant has a pretty good chance of demonstrating that he had made protected disclosures and also that the reason for dismissal had been the disclosures which had been made. A claimant must therefore show that is likely that a Tribunal will find that 1) he made a disclosure to his employer (or other appropriate person), 2) that he believed that disclosure tended to show one or more of the things set out at section 43B(1)(a)-(f), 3) that belief was reasonable, 4) that the disclosure was made in good faith and 5) that the disclosure was the principal cause of the dismissal. Discussion and decision[10]In the present case, the claimant was employed as a Housekeeping Manager from December 2025 until his dismissal on 10 April 2026. His position was that he had complained to an area manager, Mr Priestly and Operations Manager, Mr Bertram, during a walk round of the rooms of the hotel in which he was employed on 8 April 2026 that sufficient hours had not been provided to allow porters to carry out their roles and that staff were not being paid for all hours worked. He said that he was dismissed within 48 hours of raising these issues. While he accepted there were some issues with the cleanliness of the rooms, he said that this was for reasons outwith his control and he had been informed that if these issues weren’t remedied, he and Mr Bartram would “be having a very different conversation”. He understood from this that if there was not an improvement with a few weeks then he may be subject to action at that stage. The claimant said that positive ratings for the hotel’s cleanliness had been recorded on booking.com during his employment and that he had been praised in other social media and private messages for the hotel’s cleanliness. 11.The claimant also stated that he had raised with a manager at Christmas 2025 called ‘Fatima’ who is not presently working at the hotel and who was not involved in the decision to dismiss the claimant, that staff had not been paid extra hours for working Christmas day. He said that this too was a protected disclosure. 12.The respondent’s position was that the claimant was dismissed because his performance was not satisfactory. Emails were provided suggesting that the issue of the claimant’s performance was raised on the day of his dismissal and that issues had been raised with him during his employment. The claimant responded to these emails by highlighting inconsistencies in them and suggesting that the content was inaccurate. 13.The respondent also suggested that it was not clear that the claimant had set out information which would amount to a protected disclosure. 14.It appeared to me that there were significant issues of fact in dispute on which evidence would have to be heard. I was also mindful that the claimant was required to establish not just that a Tribunal would be likely to find that he was dismissed because of making a protected disclosure, but also that the disclosures themselves came within the ambit of section 43B Employment Rights Act 1996. 15.On the basis of the information before me, I was not satisfied that it was likely that a Tribunal would find that the matters relied upon by the claimant amounted to protected disclosures for the purposes of section 43B. Evidence would be required on the context in which these alleged disclosures were made. It appeared that the claimant was suggesting that staff were not being paid for hours worked because the budget was not provided by the management for the necessary hours to complete duties required. However, the claimant was not able to point to any contemporaneous evidence that he had raised concerns regarding staff not being paid (rather than not being allocated a sufficient budget) and his position on what he said on 8 April was somewhat vague in that regard. Evidence would have to be heard from the claimant and respondent’s witnesses as to what exactly was said. Therefore I could not determine on the basis of the evidence before me that there was a good chance that the claimant would establish that he had made protected disclosures. 16.Neither was I satisfied that it was likely that a Tribunal would find that the reason or principal reason for the dismissal of the claimant was that he had made a protected disclosure. Again evidence will be required in relation to what exactly was said by the claimant to whom and to what extent the respondent did have genuine concerns regarding the claimant’s performance. 17.On this basis the application for interim relief is refused and the matter should proceed to a Preliminary Hearing for the purposes of case management once the response form has been received.