Luxion Sales Ltd

Case Summary

The claimant sought interim relief on the basis that his dismissal was automatically unfair under section 103A of the Employment Rights Act 1996, alleging he made protected disclosures about concerns regarding his treatment at work. Employment Judge A Kemp refused the application for interim relief, finding that the claimant had not met the statutory test of having a pretty good chance of success, as there were material areas of doubt and conflicts in evidence regarding what disclosures were made and whether the dismissal was motivated by those disclosures.

The tribunal found that the claimant had not met the statutory test for interim relief. There were material areas of doubt regarding whether the claimant made protected disclosures in the required sense, what his state of mind was when making any disclosures, and whether the dismissal was caused by protected disclosures or by other factors such as the covert recording or failure to follow absence procedures. The tribunal considered there was a not insignificant risk for the claimant on these issues, meaning he did not have a pretty good chance of success at final hearing.

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

• •Application for interim relief under section 128 of the Employment Rights Act 1996
• •Whether dismissal was automatically unfair under section 103A of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (protected disclosure/whistleblowing)
• •Whether claimant made protected disclosures to employer
• •Whether dismissal was because claimant made protected disclosures
• •Likelihood of success of whistleblowing claim at final hearing

E.T. Z4 (WR) EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 8000667/2026 Preliminary Hearing held in Dundee on 13 April 2026 Employment Judge A Kemp Mr N Ferry Claimant In person Luxion Sales Ltd Respondent Represented by: Mr M Briggs Advocate Instructed by Ms C Parkinson Solicitor JUDGMENT The application for interim relief under section 128 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 does not succeed. Introduction 1. This Preliminary Hearing was arranged to determine an application for interim relief made by the claimant under section 128 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (“the Act”), The claimant alleges that his dismissal by the respondent was automatically unfair under section 103A of the Act, amongst other claims. There was no dispute that the claimant had made his claim timeously for interim relief. 2. The Claim Form simply designed the respondent as “utilita”, which did not appear to me likely to be a legal entity. After discussion and consideration 8000667/2026 Page 2 of a document bearing to be a contract of employment, and the letter of termination that it was agreed had been issued, it appeared that the employing entity was Luxion Sales Ltd, at the same address as given on the Claim Form. The claimant applied to amend that, and that was not opposed. I have dealt with that, and a separate application for orders as to anonymity and for restricted reporting, by separate Note. 3. The respondent has not yet entered appearance by a Response Form, but set out its position before me through Mr Briggs. Neither party argued that I should hear oral evidence, on which the cases of NASUWT v Harris UKEAT/0061/19 and Dandpat (cited below) are relevant. It is competent to do so given the terms of Rule 94, but not the norm in interim relief hearings as that Rule indicates. It appeared to me that in the circumstanc…