By Laurence Wilson, Senior Lawyer
Background
Brandon Duffy was employed by BXTR 3 Ltd t/a House of Gods in its food and beverage team from November 2025. He alleged that during an incident at the hotel on 25 November 2025, he made a protected disclosure to his manager about fire escape doors being left open, compromising building security and creating serious health and safety risks for guests and staff. Three days later, he was dismissed. Mr Duffy claimed that the disclosure was the principal reason for his dismissal, amounting to automatic unfair dismissal under the whistleblowing provisions of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
The employer disputed that any protected disclosure had been made and argued that the decision to dismiss had been taken three days before the alleged disclosure because Mr Duffy was not meeting the required standards during his probationary period.
Mr Duffy applied for interim relief, a remedy that can preserve employment rights and pay pending the outcome of a whistleblowing claim. The Employment Tribunal refused the application, concluding that there were significant disputes of fact and credibility, particularly regarding whether a protected disclosure had been made and whether the dismissal decision pre-dated any disclosure.
Mr Duffy appealed to the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT), arguing that the tribunal had wrongly treated the existence of factual disputes as enough to defeat his application and had failed to properly assess the available evidence, including a voice recording and transcript.
Outcome
The EAT allowed the appeal and remitted the case back to the same Employment Tribunal for reconsideration. It held that the tribunal had erred by treating the mere existence of factual disputes as determinative of the interim relief application. The correct approach was to make an expeditious, summary assessment of the evidence to determine whether the claimant had a “pretty good chance” of succeeding in the underlying whistleblowing claim
The EAT reaffirmed that the threshold for interim relief is deliberately high. Where an employer puts forward an apparently credible reason for dismissal unrelated to a protected disclosure, it will often be difficult for a claimant to show they have a “pretty good chance” of success unless there is clear evidence undermining that explanation. However, the tribunal must still assess the available material and cannot simply refuse relief because important facts are disputed.
The EAT also found that the tribunal had failed to give adequate reasons for its decision because it did not address the contents of a voice recording/transcript that formed an important part of the claimant’s evidence. While the EAT rejected the claimant’s argument that the tribunal’s decision was perverse, it concluded that the recording should have been considered and weighed as part of the tribunal’s assessment.
Comments / Key takeaways
This decision provides useful guidance on how tribunals should approach applications for interim relief in whistleblowing cases. While the threshold remains high, tribunals are required to carry out a genuine assessment of the available evidence rather than dismissing applications simply because there are disputes of fact that will ultimately need to be resolved at a full hearing.
The judgment also underlines the importance of contemporaneous evidence. Recordings, transcripts and other documentary material may play a significant role in assessing whether a claimant has a realistic prospect of establishing that a protected disclosure was the principal reason for their dismissal. Where such evidence is relied upon, tribunals should explain how it has been taken into account when reaching a decision.
For unions and representatives, the case is a reminder that interim relief can be a powerful tool in whistleblowing cases, particularly where there is compelling evidence linking a disclosure to the dismissal. Although claimants still face a high hurdle, employers will not be able to rely solely on the existence of disputed facts to defeat an application at this preliminary stage.
Duffy v BXTR 3 Ltd t/a House of Gods [2026] EAT 119
