Britvic Soft Drinks Ltd

Case Summary

The claimant, Hezron Simpson, applied for interim relief against his former employer, Britvic Soft Drinks Ltd. The application was dismissed as it did not meet the requirements under section 129(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996.

The application for interim relief was dismissed because it did not satisfy the statutory requirements under section 129(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996, which sets out the conditions that must be met for such relief to be granted.

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

• •interim relief application for protected disclosures under section 103A of the Employment Rights Act 1996

- 1 - EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS Claimant: Hezron Simpson Respondent: Britvic Soft Drinks Limited Heard at: East London Hearing Centre On: 16 September 2025 Before: Employment Judge S Povey Representation For the claimant: Mr Lennard (Lay representative) For the respondent: Mr Anderson (Counsel) INTERIM RELIEF 1. The application for interim relief is not made out and is dismissed. REASONS Introduction 1. The is an application by Hezron Simpson (‘the Claimant’) for an order for interim relief, pursuant to sections 128 - 132 Employment Rights Act 1996 (‘ERA 1996’), against his former employer, Britvic Soft Drinks Ltd (‘the Respondent’). 2. By way of background, the Claimant was employed by the Respondent as a Team Technician from 5 February 2024 until his dismissal on 15 August 2024. On 20 August 2024, the Claimant submitted his claim to the Tribunal, which contained a number of complaints against the Respondent, including an allegation that his dismissal was automatically unfair as the reason (or principal reason) was that he had made protected disclosures (as defined by Part IVA, and contrary to section 103A, of the ERA 1996). - 2 - 3. In addition, the Claimant applied for interim relief (‘the application’), that is, an order for the continuation of his contract of employment pending the determination of his substantive claim (per sections 128 & 129 of the ERA 1996). 4. It was not in dispute that the application was made in accordance with the strict requirements under section 128. What was in dispute was whether the requirements under section 129(1) were met, which provides as follows (so far as relevant): ...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 rea…