Interim Relief Applications

On 22 June 2026, new Presidential guidance was issued for interim relief applications. This follows a significant increase in applications of this sort (reportedly going up from around 20 a year to 20 per month in each regional office). The increase is presumed to be caused largely by AI churning out applications at no cost. The guidance is a must read for anyone making an interim relief application but also helpful for those who are responding.

Interim relief is an emergency measure. It prevents a dismissal from taking effect until the tribunal has heard the complaint of unfair dismissal. If interim relief is granted, the tribunal may order the employer to reinstate the employee or to re-engage them in an equivalent role, or the tribunal may make a “continuation of contract order” (pending trial). Because of the effect of those orders, there is a high threshold for employees to satisfy before the tribunal will grant interim relief.

Interim relief applications can be made in a variety of cases under section 128 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (“ERA”) and section 161 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. The categories of dismissal cases where the relief is available include, but is not limited to, whistleblowing dismissals.

The guidance confirms that strict procedural requirements if an application for interim relief is to be made. In particular, applications must usually be issued within 7 days of the EDT, and the Tribunal has no power to extend time.

Readers are reminded that the legal test is best summarised as whether the Claimant has a “pretty good chance of success” – it is not a ‘more likely than not’ test. Being more likely than not to succeed is not good enough. The case of Dandpat v University of Bath EAT/0408/09 holds that the test is nearer to ‘certainty’ than mere ‘probability’.

For these reasons the success rate of such applications is low and the increased number of applications has caused concern that unmeritorious applications will further clog up an already overloaded Employment Tribunal system.

In assessing applications, the Tribunal will take account of all elements of the underlying claim, not just the reason for dismissal.

At the conclusion of the Guidance, the President sets out four helpful practical considerations in whistleblowing cases. Firstly, the applicant must have a pretty good chance of showing the tribunal will find that one or more disclosures are ‘protected’ (see s.43B ERA). Secondly, the applicant will need to show that there is a pretty good chance the tribunal will find that the protected disclosure caused the dismissal. Third, the more hurdles the applicant faces in order to succeed with the claim, the more difficult it will be to persuade the tribunal that there is a pretty good chance of success. Fourth, cases which are complex because they rely on a large number of disclosures may make it more difficult for an applicant to succeed because there may be no clear link between any specific disclosures and the decision to dismiss.