Diligenta Ltd

Case Summary

The Employment Tribunal refused the claimant's application for interim relief, as there were too many uncertainties and the claim lacked clarity regarding blacklisting.

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

• •automatic unfair dismissal on the ground of protected disclosures (section 103A of ERA)
• •blacklisting (section 104F of ERA)

ETZ4(WR) EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No:8001943/2025Interim Relief Hearing at Edinburgh on28August 2025 Employment Judge:M A Macleod Alastair Logan Claimant In Person Diligenta Limited Respondent Represented by Mr R Allen Barrister DECISION OF THE EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNAL The Decision of the Employment Tribunal is that the claimant’s application for Interim Relief isrefused. REASONS 1.This case called for ahearing at 10am on28 August 2025 to determine the claimant’s application for interim relief dated 9 August 2025. 2.The claimant appeared on his own behalf, and Mr Allen, barrister, appeared for the respondent. 3.Each party presented a bundle of documents, and a skeleton argument, to which they respectively spoke. The claimant presented his submission first, followed by Mr Allen. The claimant was then given the right of reply to the respondent’s submission, and Mr Allen responded briefly. Thehearing concluded at 2.30pm. 8001943/2025Page2 4.In light of the length of thehearing, and the substantial nature of the bundles produced, I adjourned thehearing at that point, and advised the parties that I would prepare and issue a Decision by no later than 29 August 2025. 5.I will summarise the submissions made by the parties, as briefly as possible, and then set out the basis for my decision. Submissions 6.The claimant initially submitted that the Tribunal should hear evidence in thishearing.He relied uponHancock v Ter-BergUKEAT/0138/19/BA, and the judgment therein of the Honourable Mr Justice Choudhury, then President of the Employment Appeal Tribunal. In particular, he referred to paragraph 41 of thejudgment, in which Mr Justice Choudhury stated that there was no real warrant, either in terms of the statutory provi…