2300946/2026

Lantain Ltd and A G Sandry

1 June 2026·Employment Tribunal·England & Wales·Employment Judge Sudra

Respondent

Lantain Ltd and A G Sandry

All cases →

Decision date

1 June 2026

Tribunal

Employment Tribunal

Jurisdiction

England & Wales

Judge

Employment Judge Sudra

Case Summary

The claimant applied for interim relief following his resignation on 10 May 2026, claiming constructive unfair dismissal and whistleblowing detriments after making protected disclosures about breaches of national minimum wage, health and safety, and working time regulations between February and May 2026. Employment Judge Sudra refused the application, finding that based on the evidence available, the tribunal could not conclude the claimant had a pretty good chance of success in the substantive claim, as the factual dispute between the parties (whether the alleged detriments were caused by the protected disclosures or by business efficacy reasons) was too complex to assess at the interim relief stage.

Why this outcome?

No reasonable prospects

The tribunal refused interim relief because it could not assess, based on the evidence available at the preliminary hearing, that the claimant had a pretty good chance of success in the substantive claim. The factual dispute over whether the respondent's alleged detriments (non-availability of work, changes to pay and conditions) were caused by the claimant's protected disclosures or by the respondent's business efficacy reasons (changes to commuting time policies and machinery misuse) was too complex and contested for determination at the interim relief stage.

Related claim guides

Use these claim-type pages to compare this decision with other published tribunal cases, outcome patterns, and visible award data.

Key Issues

  • Whether claimant has a pretty good chance of success in the substantive claim for unfair dismissal based on protected disclosures under s.103A ERA
  • Whether the respondent's alleged detriments (changes to pay, conditions, and non-availability of work) were caused by the protected disclosures
  • Whether the respondent's business efficacy arguments (changes to commuting time policies and damage caused by machinery misuse) are credible alternative explanations
  • Assessment of interim relief eligibility where the tribunal cannot make sufficient factual findings

Original published judgment

The full source document is available from the official publication page.

Something doesn't look right?

Report a wrong claim type, outcome, summary, or award.