Duffy v House of Gods: EAT quashes refusal of interim relief in whistleblowing case

The Employment Appeal Tribunal has overturned a Glasgow employment tribunal's refusal to grant interim relief to a hotel worker who claimed he was dismissed for raising safety concerns, ruling that the tribunal wrongly treated the existence of factual disputes as decisive rather than assessing the merits on a summary basis.

In Duffy v BXTR 3 Ltd t/a House of Gods [2026] EAT 119, Recorder Fraser Butlin KC held that the original tribunal had erred in its application of the "pretty good chance" test set out in section 129(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996, and remitted the case for reconsideration.

Background

Brandon Duffy began working in the food and beverage team at House of Gods, a hotel business, on 10 November 2025. Following an incident on the premises on 25 November 2025 that led to police involvement, Duffy said he told his manager that evening about fire escape doors left open, which he said compromised guest and staff safety. He was dismissed three days later, on 28 November 2025.

Duffy argued the dismissal followed his protected disclosure. The respondent disputed that any disclosure had been made and said the decision to dismiss had already been taken on 22 November, before the alleged disclosure, although it was not communicated to Duffy until the 28th.

The Glasgow tribunal refused Duffy's application for interim relief in a judgement sent to the parties on 14 January 2026, finding there were "fundamental issues of fact and credibility in dispute" that meant Duffy could not show a pretty good chance of success at a full hearing.

Grounds of appeal

Duffy appealed on three grounds. The EAT upheld the first, finding that the tribunal had conflated the existence of factual disputes with an assessment of how those disputes were likely to resolve. Recorder Butlin noted that identifying disputes is a different exercise from making the expeditious, summary assessment required by law, and that the tribunal's reasoning showed it had treated the disputes as determinative in themselves.

The second ground, alleging perversity for failing to consider a voice recording of Duffy speaking with managers after his dismissal, was dismissed. The EAT held the recording was not the "smoking gun" Duffy suggested, given the individuals on it were not those to whom the disclosure was allegedly made, and the high bar for a perversity finding was not met.

The third ground, concerning inadequate reasons, succeeded. The EAT found the tribunal's failure to engage with the transcript of the recording, described as a central piece of contemporaneous evidence, left its reasoning inadequately explained.

Remittal

Recorder Butlin declined invitations from both parties to determine the interim relief application himself, noting that doing so would require making factual assessments that, following the Court of Appeal's approach in Jafri v Lincoln College [2014] EWCA Civ 449, are reserved to the tribunal. The matter was remitted to the same tribunal, which the EAT considered best placed to undertake the necessary summary assessment given its familiarity with the material, ahead of a substantive hearing listed for 7 September.

The judgement reaffirms that Presidential Guidance issued in June 2026, though it postdated the original decision, correctly states that claimants face a high bar in showing a protected disclosure was the principal cause of dismissal where an employer identifies an apparently unrelated reason.