Adequacy of Reasons: Tim Wilkinson appears in the EAT
Tim Wilkinson successfully responded to an appeal against the dismissal of the Claimant’s interim relief application. The Claimant is pursuing a claim of automatic unfair dismissal pursuant to section 103A of the Employment Rights Act 1996. Employment Judge Sudra refused the Claimant’s application for interim relief in a reserved judgment sent in October 2025.
The Claimant’s expedited appeal came before the EAT in March 2026. The sole ground of appeal to make it through the sift, and the Rule 3(10) hearing, was whether or not EJ Sudra’s reasoning had been adequate.
In a reserved judgment, HHJ James Tayler has dismissed the appeal. Whilst the reasoning was ‘brief’, it was sufficient. In so doing, the EAT has reiterated that the reasons of an ET should be sufficient for the unsuccessful party to understand why he lost. HHJ Tayler accepted that there is ‘no bright line’ as to what amounts to adequate reasons, and that it is a matter of assessment of the facts in a particular case. Pertinently, the context of an interim relief application is that the Tribunal is required only to conduct a broad initial summary assessment; it would not be appropriate to make findings of fact. In that context the judgment, read as a whole, adequately set out EJ Sudra’s reasoning. His assessment was that, on the evidence available, it was not ‘likely’ (which, in an interim relief application, means ‘pretty good chance’) that the Claimant would establish that the reason or principal reason for his dismissal was a protected disclosure, as opposed to the conduct relied upon by the Respondent.
The judgment can be found at https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/69aea155c78869bf8eb8a526/Mr._O._E._Olarewaju_v_Bupa_Care_Services_Ltd__2026__EAT_38.pdf
