The Claimant asserted that he was dismissed for the reason, or principal reason, that he made protected disclosures and claimed interim relief pending the determination of his claim. The statutory test for such a claim is whether it is “likely” that the section 103A ERA complaint will be made out. The ET concluded that the Claimant had not satisfied that burden (which is a very difficult one to surmount). He had not convinced the EJ that his claim for being dismissed for making a protected disclosure was nearer to certain, rather than a possibility. The Claimant appealed.

The EAT dismissed the appeal. The reasoning of the ET, while brief, was sufficient to tell the Claimant why his application for interim relief failed.