OE Olarewaju v Bupa Care Services Limited

An Employment Tribunal determining interim relief for an alleged protected-disclosure dismissal must make an expeditious, summary assessment of whether the claim has a pretty good chance of success. It must not determine the merits or make final findings of fact.

Reasons need only give the unsuccessful party the essential gist of why the application failed. They must be read fairly and as a whole. Brief reasons may suffice where the judgment identifies the decisive issue and the material supporting the opposing case. Under Employment Rights Act 1996, the question is whether it is likely that protected disclosures were the reason, or principal reason, for dismissal.

The claimant, a care assistant, alleged that the respondent had dismissed him because he made protected disclosures. He applied for interim relief in support of an automatic-unfair-dismissal complaint under section 103A of the Employment Rights Act 1996.

Employment Judge Sudra refused interim relief after a hearing on 25 September 2025. The tribunal summarised the claimant’s allegations of disclosures and a conspiracy to dismiss him, and the respondent’s case that complaints about his conduct had been independently investigated and had led to dismissal.

Most grounds of appeal were rejected at the sift stage. The sole permitted ground was that the tribunal had given insufficient reasons. The central issue was whether the brief judgment, read as a whole, gave the essential gist of why interim relief was refused.

1. Appeal dismissed. The Employment Tribunal’s reasons, although brief, were adequate when read as a whole.

2. An application for interim relief under sections 128 and 129 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 requires a broad and expeditious summary assessment. The issue is whether the claimant has a pretty good chance of establishing at the full hearing that protected disclosures were the reason, or principal reason, for dismissal. The tribunal must not make final findings of fact or determine the merits.

3. The adequacy of reasons is fact-specific. A tribunal need not give a detailed analysis in an interim-relief decision. It must, however, give sufficient reasons to enable the unsuccessful party to understand why the application failed. The judgment must be read realistically and as a whole.

4. Here, the tribunal’s principal conclusion was clear. On the material available, it was not likely that the claimant would establish causation. The respondent had produced documents showing complaints about the claimant, an investigation, and dismissal by an independent manager. That material supported the provisional view that dismissal resulted from alleged misconduct rather than protected disclosures.

5. The tribunal was entitled to limit its consideration to the pleaded case. Its failure expressly to address an alleged disclosure referred to in the claimant’s witness statement and bundle, but not in the claim form, did not undermine the adequacy of its reasons. The refusal of interim relief was upheld.

• Employment Appeal Tribunal: appeal dismissed: [2026] EAT 38.
• Employment Tribunal: Employment Judge Sudra refused the claimant’s application for interim relief at a hearing on 25 September 2025. Judgment was sent to the parties on 2 October 2025.