Speedy Asset Services Ltd

Case Summary

The claimant, employed as operations director for three months, applied for interim relief following dismissal on 8 July 2024. He alleged automatic unfair dismissal under s.103A ERA 1996 on grounds that he had made a protected disclosure about alleged fraud, and also claimed disability discrimination. The tribunal refused interim relief, finding on the balance of probabilities at an impressionistic assessment that the claimant had not demonstrated he was likely to succeed, primarily due to disputes about whether the disclosure was made, whether it qualified as protected, and whether it was the principal reason for dismissal.

The tribunal found the claimant had not demonstrated a pretty good chance of success on the substantive claim because: (1) there was a factual dispute about whether the disclosure was made at all, and the tribunal was unpersuaded on the evidence that it was made on the date alleged; (2) it was unclear whether any disclosure would constitute a protected disclosure as defined in law; (3) there was dispute as to whether any disclosure was the principal reason for dismissal, with the decision-maker denying knowledge of it; and (4) the respondent's stated reasons for dismissal (performance and conduct issues over a short employment period) were credible and plausible, notwithstanding procedural defects.

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

• •Whether claimant made a protected disclosure regarding inflating profit margins
• •Whether any disclosure was a protected disclosure under ERA 1996 s.43B
• •Whether dismissal was for the principal reason of having made a protected disclosure under s.103A
• •Credibility of respondent's stated reasons for dismissal
• •Whether fair process was followed given claimant's seniority
• •Disability discrimination claim

JUDGMENT AND REASONS Case No. 6005408/2024 1 EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS Claimant: Mr B Stokes Respondent: Speedy Asset Services Ltd Heard at: Manchester (by CVP) On: 14 August 2024 Before: Employment Judge Phil Allen REPRESENTATION: Claimant: Mr A Carter, counsel Respondent: Mr P Keith, counsel INTERIM RELIEF JUDGMENT The judgment of the Tribunal is that: 1. The application for interim relief is refused. The claimant has not established what is required under section 129 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. REASONS Procedure 1. This was an application for interim relief. 2. Both parties were represented by counsel. 3. The hearing was conducted by CVP remote video technology. 4. A joint agreed bundle of documents was provided. 5. Witness statements were provided from the claimant and (for the respondent) Mr Matt Seaman (Business Development Director UK and Ireland) and Ms Beverley Sharpe (Mobilisation and Customer Service Director). In accordance with rule 95 I did not hear oral evidence (but I read the statements provided). JUDGMENT AND REASONS Case No. 6005408/2024 2 6. In advance of the hearing each counsel provided a well written and detailed skeleton argument. I read both before the start of the hearing. Each of the representatives made oral submissions which expanded upon their skeleton argument and addressed the points raised by the other counsel. 7. After an adjournment, I informed the parties of my decision and the reasons for it. As the respondent requested written reasons, these written reasons have been provided. Facts 8. I will not endeavour to recap all of the key facts; I will only reproduce those which were relevant to my decision. 9. The claimant was employed by the respondent as operations director from 8 April 2024 until 8 July 2024. 10. The claimant alleges that in a te…