Peninsula Business Services Ltd

Case Summary

The claimant, a litigation consultant with some employment law experience, applied for interim relief following his summary dismissal, claiming automatic unfair dismissal for protected whistleblowing. The tribunal found the interim relief application was a 'long shot' from the outset, as the claimant knew he had not addressed disclosures to the decision-maker and later received evidence that the dismissing manager was unaware of the disclosures before the dismissal decision. The respondent was awarded a contribution to costs for the interim relief hearing.

The tribunal considered the claimant acted unreasonably in pursuing interim relief because, despite having some employment law experience, he should have known the application was a 'long shot' from the outset. The claimant knew he had not disclosed information to the decision-maker, had not attended the disciplinary hearing, and subsequently received evidence that the dismissing manager was unaware of any disclosures before making the dismissal decision, making it extremely difficult to establish that whistleblowing was the principal reason for dismissal.

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

• •Whether claimant established automatic unfair dismissal for protected whistleblowing
• •Whether interim relief should have been granted
• •Whether claimant acted unreasonably in pursuing interim relief application
• •Costs - whether claimant should pay respondent's costs incurred at interim relief hearing

Case No: 6021729/2025 10.7 Judgment with reasons – rule 62 EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS Claimant: Mr Edward Walker Respondent: Peninsula Business Services Limited Heard at: London South by video On: 10 July 2025 Before: Employment Judge Corrigan Representation Claimant: In person Respondent: Mr R Kohanzad, Counsel COSTS ORDER 1. The respondent’s application for costs is granted and the claimant is ordered to pay the respondent the sum of £535.80 as a contribution to the costs incurred by the interim relief hearing. REASONS 1. The respondent applied for costs at the hearing on 10 July 2025 but there was insufficient time to deal with this then. The respondent was invited to make the application in writing and I indicated my intention to deal with it in writing. The respondent then made their application on 22 August 2025 after receipt of the written reasons. The claimant was copied in. No representations were received from the claimant. 2. The application was referred to me on 8 December 2025, and following my instruction on that date, the tribunal then wrote to the parties on 14 February 2026 stating again my intention to address the application on the papers and giving the claimant a further opportunity to object and specifically requesting details of his means. The claimant did not reply to this. There are currently delays in processing correspondence due to the volume of work received by the tribunal but this does mean the claimant has had ample time to raise any objection or other representations in response to the application. Case No: 6021729/2025 10.7 Judgment with reasons – rule 62 3. The evidence I do have about his means is from a further claim he has submitted (6031369/2025) where his income at the respondent was stated to be £3,100 net monthly. The respond…