Diageo Scotland Ltd

Case Summary

The claimant's application for interim relief in relation to her whistleblowing claim was refused, as the tribunal could not find that it was 'likely' that the reason for her dismissal was her protected disclosure, despite finding it more probable than not that she would succeed at the full hearing.

The tribunal refused interim relief because it could not find it 'likely' that the dismissal was due to protected disclosure, even though it assessed the claimant would probably succeed at the full hearing—the interim relief threshold being higher than the standard test for the substantive claim.

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

• •Whether the claimant is likely to succeed in showing that the reason for her dismissal was that she made a protected disclosure

EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND)5 Case No:8000099/2025 & 8001985/2025 Held:Dundee Employment Tribunal10 byvideoon17 October 2025 Employment JudgeO’Dempsey, Mrs G Wilson Claimant In Person 15 Diageo Scotland LimitedRespondent Dowey (Consultant) 20 JUDGMENT OF THE EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNAL The claimant’s application for interim relief is refused.25 REASONS 1)This case came before me on 17 October 2025 for an interim relief application to be determined. 30 2) The claimant and respondent have supplied skeleton arguments which are not incorporated into these reasons but should be read along side them. Law 3) Before going into the submissions on factors that were made to me I set out the35 legal test. 4) Section 103A at the 1996 Act provides "a person who is dismissed shall be regarded for the purposes of this Part as unfairly dismissed if the reason (or if more than one, the principal reason) for the dismissal is that the employee made a protected disclosure". “Likely”5 5) Section 129 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 provides that interim relief should be granted where it appears to the tribunal that it islikelythat the reason for the dismissal is that the claimant has made a protected disclosure. In this context the term "likely" connotes a significantly higher degree of likelihood than "more likely than not". It is not a test amounting to "beyond reasonable doubt".10 6) So "Likely" 1 in this context means more than just a "reasonable prospect of success" but there is no need for the claimant (on whom the burden of proof rests for all elements at this stage) to establish that she "will" succeed at trial. I must consider whether she has "a pretty good chance" (TaplinvCShippamLimited15 [1978] IRLR 450 (EAT) approved inRajavTheSecretaryofStateforJustice UKEAT/0364/09 and inDandpatvUniversityofBathand another UKEAT/0408/09) or whether the case "looks like a winner" (DerbyDa…