Radfield Homecare

Case Summary

The claimant applied for interim relief following her dismissal by Radfield Homecare, claiming she was dismissed for making protected disclosures. Employment Judge Leith considered the legal test for interim relief and the requirements for protected disclosures under the Employment Rights Act 1996. The application was dismissed on the basis that the claimant could not satisfy the tribunal that there was a pretty good chance of showing that the disclosures relied upon were the sole or principal reason for her dismissal.

The tribunal could not be satisfied that there was a pretty good chance of the claimant showing that the disclosures she relied upon were the sole or principal reason for her dismissal, which is the required test for interim relief applications under section 129 of the Employment Rights Act 1996.

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

• •Whether claimant made protected disclosures
• •Whether dismissal was automatically unfair under section 103A Employment Rights Act 1996
• •Whether claimant has pretty good chance of success at full hearing for interim relief

The full source document is available from the official publication page. Tribunal Intel does not republish the raw judgment text inline.