The Claimant was dismissed and she claimed that her dismissal was really because she had made protected disclosures, relying on some eight particular communications. She further applied for interim relief. At the hearing of that application, the ET concluded that the Claimant had a pretty good chance (applying Taplin v C Shippam Ltd [1978] ICR 1068 EAT) of succeeding in her claim and made an order that the contract between the parties should continue until the determination or settlement of the Claimant's complaint of unfair dismissal. The Respondent appealed.

The EAT allowed the appeal in part. The obligation upon an ET on an interim relief application was necessarily to carry out a summary assessment of the material before it (applying the test laid down in Taplin v Shippam) to determine whether the Claimant was likely to succeed in her claim. Although the ET had not erred in determining that the Claimant was likely to succeed in showing that she had made qualifying disclosures, it was, however, not possible to be similarly confident as to the ET's approach to the public interest element of the protected disclosure requirement.