Young & Co’s Brewery plc

Case Summary

Ms O Nicholson applied for interim relief pending determination of her claim for automatic unfair dismissal under section 103A ERA, alleging she was dismissed for making a protected disclosure. The claimant was self-represented and had only 7 weeks service. The application for interim relief was refused.

The judgment document provided does not include the detailed reasoning for the refusal of interim relief. The document states the legal tests and procedural framework but the substantive reasons for refusing the application are not fully contained in the excerpt provided, as written reasons were to be provided only upon request within 14 days.

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
• •Whether disclosure amounted to a protected disclosure under section 43A ERA
• •Whether reason or principal reason for dismissal was the protected disclosure
• •Application for interim relief under section 128 Employment Rights Act 1996

EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS Claimant:Ms. O Nicholson Respondent:Young & Co’s Brewery PLC Heard at:London South On:18 May 2026 Before:Employment Judge Cawthray Representation Claimant:In person, not legally qualified Respondent:Mr. Hignett, Counsel JUDGMENT The Claimant’s application for interim relief under section 128 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 is refused. REASONS Introduction and Background 1. The Claimant made an application for Interim Relief made under section 128 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (“ERA”), pending the determination of her claim for automatic unfair dismissal for having made a protected disclosure brought under section 103A ERA. 2. By a claim form presented on 6 April 2026, the Claimant claims that she was automatically unfairly dismissed by the Respondent for making a protected disclosure pursuant to section 103A of the Employment Rights Act (the “ERA”). 3. This application for interim relief was presented in the ET1 dated 6 April 2026. The Claimant, within the ET1, states the effective date of termination was 31 March 2026. An application for interim relief must be made within 7 days immediately following the effective date of termination. 4. The Respondent has not yet submitted a response, the response is due by 3 June 2026. 5. The Claimant was sent a letter from the Tribunal stating part of her claim were rejected as the Claimant had not provided an ACAS early conciliation certificate. The letter was not entirely clear. The Claimant clarified at the start of the hearing that she only had 7 weeks service, and she was only seeking to bring an automatically unfair dismissal complaint. Procedure 6. The Claimant provided a 66-page bundle which contained various documents and included a witness statement. 7. The Respondent provided a 78-page bundle and two witness statements, for James Wilson and Tallon Smith. 8. At the outset of the hearing, I discussed with the parties whether any reasonable adjustments were required for the hearin…