HSBC Bank plc

Case Summary

The Employment Judge dismissed the claimant's application for interim relief under section 128-129 ERA, finding that he did not have a pretty good chance of establishing the principal reasons for his dismissal.

The tribunal dismissed the interim relief application because the claimant failed to establish that he had a pretty good chance of succeeding on the merits of his unfair dismissal claim, specifically regarding the principal reason for dismissal.

• •whether the Claimant had made protected disclosures
• •the reason for dismissal and whether it was a hidden reason

1 EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS Claimant: Mr Mehmet Burak Ozkeles Respondent: HSBC Bank Plc Heard at: East London Hearing Centre On: 7 June 2023 Before: Employment Judge Eleena Misra KC Representation Claimant: Mr. Paul Gilroy KC Respondent: Ms. Diya Sen Gupta KC RESERVED JUDGMENT The Claimant’s application for interim relief under section 128 Employment Rights Act 1996 (‘ERA’) in relation to his claim for automatic unfair dismissal contrary to section 103A ERA fails and is dismissed. REASONS The Application 1. The Claimant presented an ET1 on 21 March 2023. In that ET1 he applied for interim relief which application he further pursued in correspondence with the Employment Tribunal. The application was made in time the Claimant’s employment having been terminated with effect from 14 March 2023. 2. The Claimant makes various claims including a claim for automatic unfair dismissal contrary to section 103A ERA and his application for interim relief under section 128-129 ERA relates to this matter. 3. The Respondent was served with the Claimant’s ET1 and application; the deadline for submitting its ET3 has not yet passed and (understandably) no ET3 has been presented to date. 2 4. On 7 June 2023, at the hearing of the application, Counsel for the Claimant sought to amend the ET1 in the terms set out in the amended Further and Better Particulars of which notice was given to the Respondent. Counsel for the Respondent confirmed there was no objection to the amendment and, having regard to the nature of the amendment and the Respondent’s position, as well as the overriding objective and the fact that the Respondent is yet to submit its ET3, I granted the amendment in such terms. Documents 5. The documents I had before me in determining the application were as follows: i. Agreed bundle of documents running to 352 pages in total. …