The Ministry of Justice

Case Summary

The claimant, a trainee legal advisor at the Ministry of Justice, applied for interim relief following his dismissal on 13 March 2026. The claimant alleged that his dismissal was automatically unfair because it was motivated by his protected disclosures concerning magistrates' non-attendance at hearings in breach of legal requirements. The tribunal conducted a preliminary hearing to assess whether the claimant was likely to succeed in his claim that a protected disclosure was the sole or principal reason for dismissal.

The judgment does not contain an explicit statement of the reason for refusing interim relief. The document appears to be incomplete, containing only the procedural background, legal framework, and submissions summary, but not the tribunal's final reasoning or conclusion on the likelihood of success of the whistleblowing claim.

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

• •Whether the claimant made a protected disclosure
• •Whether the protected disclosure was the reason or principal reason for dismissal
• •Interim relief application following dismissal
• •Likelihood of succeeding on whistleblowing claim

1 EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS Claimant: Christopher John Respondent: The Ministry of Justice Heard at: Bury St Edmunds Employment Tribunal On: 14 May 2026 Before: Employment Judge Illing Representation Claimant: In person Respondent: Mr S Crawford (Counsel) JUDGMENT The judgment of the Tribunal is that: - 1. The Claimant’s application for interim relief is refused. REASONS This has been a remote hearing, which has not been objected to by the parties. The form of remote hearing was A: audio only. A face to face hearing was not held because it was not practicable and all case management issues could be determined in a remote hearing. 2 Procedural history 1. This is a claim that was issued on the 18 March 20026 and is a claim for unfair dismissal and an application for interim relief. 2. The Claimant’s employment ended on 13 March 2026 and the application is made within 7-days of this date. 3. The Claimant alleges that the reason for the dismissal, or the principal reason for the dismissal was because he made a protected disclosure. 4. The issues to be decided are: 4.1. Was there was a protected disclosure; and 4.2. Was the disclosure was the reason or the principal reason for the Claimant’s dismissal. 5. The hearing was conducted by video. During the course of the hearing, the Tribunal received a request from a member of the media, Mr Tristan Kirk, Courts Editor, who was attending, for a copy of the documents referred to. His request confirmed the purpose for which he was requesting copies, which was to follow the proceedings and to understand the arguments and decisions as they are made. Further to a discussion with the parties, a copy of the documents, with personal details redacted, would be forward him to use on the proviso that the use was limited to the manner in which he…