‘Claimants lack a fighting chance’: A new report on interim relief shows how hard it is to win

A new report analysing hundreds of recent employment tribunal judgments has found that only seven per cent of applications for interim relief succeeded.

And in a quarter of those cases, the claimant only won because the respondent did not attend the hearing.

These striking figures come from an empirical study into Interim Relief in the Employment Tribunal, carried out by researcher Suresh Patel for Mishcon de Reya.

Mishcon’s report is backed by Protect, the Whistleblowing Charity, whose Joint Chief Executive, Sybille Raphael, says in the Foreword to the report that its findings are ‘sometimes troubling’ and that ‘UK whistleblowing law is not working well enough’ for workers or businesses.

Interim relief is an ‘emergency’ remedy available to claimants who argue that they have been dismissed for a reason prohibited by public policy – usually whistleblowing, and less often, for undertaking trade union activities or acting as a health and safety rep. The application must be made within seven days of the dismissal and the interim relief hearing is expedited, and heard in a three-hour fast-track process.

To win interim relief (which typically results in the applicant’s salary being paid until the final hearing), the applicant must show to a high legal standard (‘a pretty good chance of success’) that they will succeed at the final hearing in showing that their whistleblowing was the reason for their dismissal. Oral evidence is hardly ever heard, so the claimant needs to present a cogent case based on documents.

There has been a huge increase in the number of interim relief applications made in the past year, prompting the Presidents of the Employment Tribunals in England and Wales, and Scotland, to issue Presidential Guidance on Applications for Interim Relief in June 2026, aimed at streamlining the process and helping claimants understand the difficulties in making these applications.

Patel scoured the employment tribunal database on gov.uk to find 721 tribunal decisions on interim relief, of which the most recent 500, from 2020 to 2026, were analysed in detail.

Of those 500 hearings, the claimant won interim relief in just 35 (seven per cent).  

The research makes interesting reading for both claimants and respondents, as it analyses the factors that would seem to help each side.

Patel found that the overwhelming majority of applications (97 per cent) were from applicants who claimed that they had been dismissed for whistleblowing – the remaining three per cent alleged they had been dismissed for trade union activities.

While the trade unionists only need to prove causation, the whistleblowers need to prove they made a protected disclosure in the first place, which is a complex and multi-faceted legal test, as well as proving that making the disclosure was the reason for the dismissal.

Patel found that claimants were more likely to succeed if they relied on a small number of disclosures; focused on one cause of action rather than adding further claims and allegations; had good documentation to support their disclosures (one judge said that the best protected disclosures ‘shouted out’ from the documents); and could demonstrate close temporal proximity between the disclosure and their dismissal. Having legal representation also increased their chances of success.

Claimants alleging they had made protected disclosures in medical/healthcare settings tended to be more successful (albeit Patel noted the small sample size).

Claimants often failed because the tribunal found that their alleged protected disclosures had no public interest element but were more in the manner of personal workplace grievances.

Respondents were more likely to defeat the application if they presented documentary evidence about what they contended was the real reason for dismissal (typically, the claimant’s conduct or capability), and if they could put forward a genuine alternative version of events so that the tribunal reached a ‘stalemate’ and was unable at this preliminary stage to decide which version was correct.  Most crucially of all, respondents must attend the hearing – or the claimant is awarded interim relief by default.

Patel concluded, in the light of factors including the high legal test and the fact that oral evidence is generally not heard in these applications, ‘many claimants would seem to lack a fighting chance when applying for Interim Relief. Respondents can often resist applications with comparative ease… Added to that, many applications are seemingly pursued without the expert advice needed to traverse what is already difficult terrain.’

The report ends by considering possible solutions. One is to revisit the high legal test, which has been good law since first set down in Taplin v C Shippam Ltd [1978] IRLR 450. Tailoring interim relief better to the wider whistleblowing legal framework is another suggestion, and reducing the tribunal backlogs could help, as claimants may be encouraged to apply for interim relief as a temporary solution given that final hearings are usually years in the future.

But these are not quick fixes. Ms Raphael notes that the Government has committed to a dedicated consultation on the whistleblowing framework, but given the demands on Government and Parliamentary time, this is likely to be a long-term project.  

This useful report sheds further light on the problems recently identified by the Presidential Guidance, but for now there seems no immediate solution to the problem of large numbers of poorly evidenced interim relief applications clogging up the tribunal system and pushing other hearings ever further into the future.

Mishcon’s report

Catherine Urquhart is the author of ‘A Practical Guide to Interim Relief in the Employment Tribunal’, to be published in October 2026. Pre-order a copy.

The Presidential Guidance on Applications for Interim Relief

28th Sep 2026

Catherine Urquhart

Call 2010