Whistleblowing of a safeguarding concern and interim relief applications

A recent judgment serves as a useful reminder of how judges will consider applications for interim relief in whistleblowing cases where a claimant alleges the main reason for their dismissal was a protected disclosure.

Background

In the case of Mr A Mottram v The Inspire Multi Academy Trust, Mr Mottram brought employment tribunal (ET) proceedings against his former employer, The Inspire Multi Academy Trust, following the termination of his employment. His claims include an allegation that he was dismissed because of a protected disclosure (whistleblowing) regarding a safeguarding incident at the trust.

Interim relief

In whistleblowing claims, there is an exceptional early remedy available to claimants where they can apply to an ET for ‘interim relief’. Where such applications succeed, employers can be ordered to reinstate the employee’s contract of employment (or reinstate their salary payments) until the full-merits hearing at the ET.

‘Pretty good chance of success’

The relief application requires employment judges to assess the merits of the whistleblowing claim and decide whether it is ‘likely’ to succeed. It requires an employee to prove, not on balance of probabilities (more likely than not) but instead that there is a ‘pretty good chance of success’ (Taplin v C Shippam Ltd 1978) of the claim succeeding at the final hearing. It is essentially a higher burden of proof that applies to all elements of the whistleblowing claim.

Sexual harassment

On 14 July 2025, Mr Mottram sent an email to the safeguarding lead at his trust alleging he had been the victim of sexual harassment by a member of staff. He said within that email:

‘I am writing to formally log a safeguarding concern that I feel is important to record, while also making clear that I do not wish to escalate the matter further at this stage’.

Personal conduct

Around the same time that Mr Mottram purports to have notified the trust of the sexual harassment he was subjected to on school premises (which was accepted by the ET to be a protected disclosure) his personal conduct was also a concern for the trust with it being alleged he was being inappropriate and over-familiar with the headteacher. The concerns appear to have been significant because a police investigation into his conduct is referenced in the ET judgment.

Disciplinary process

In any event, Mr Mottram’s conduct resulted in the trust conducting a disciplinary investigation, a disciplinary hearing and resulted in the eventual termination of his employment.

Mr Mottram did not take part in the disciplinary process with the trust and did not attend the disciplinary hearing. Despite this, he maintained that the real reason for the termination of his employment was his protected disclosure and not his conduct. He accepted he was under police investigation.

Application refused

The ET refused Mr Mottram’s application for interim relief. Although the ET accepted that there was a dispute between the parties about the reasons for dismissal, it concluded that Mr Mottram had not demonstrated the necessary likelihood of success at the interim relief stage. The ET found that:

• The trust had advanced an alternative explanation for the dismissal unrelated to whistleblowing, that is, his personal conduct.
• There was insufficient evidence to show that any alleged protected disclosure was the principal reason for the termination.
• The ET could not conclude, on the limited evidence available, that Mr Mottram was likely to succeed at the full-merits hearing in terms of having a ‘pretty good chance of success’.

Full-merits hearing

The ET noted that the case involved contested facts and credibility issues which could only properly be resolved at a full-merits hearing. As a result, Mr Mottram’s case did not meet the higher threshold required for interim relief.

Advice for schools

This decision reinforces that interim relief remains a rare and high-threshold remedy. It serves as a useful reminder of:

• The importance of clearly and properly documented dismissal reasons in disciplinary outcome letters.
• The value of evidence demonstrating non-retaliatory decision-making at all stages in the disciplinary process.
• The fact that ETs will not grant interim relief where the reason for dismissal is genuinely contested and not clearly or obviously linked to whistleblowing.

The substantive unfair dismissal and whistleblowing claims will now proceed to a full merits hearing, where the factual disputes will be determined.

Need support with your HR?

Our support means you can focus on education, while we take care of your organisation’s HR needs.

Our Core membership service provides school leaders with immediate, unlimited access to expert advice on employment matters. Designed to support the day-to-day management of your school workforce, this service gives you the reassurance that you’re operating fairly, legally and confidently across all aspects of HR. Get in touch about how we can help you.

The whistleblowing section of our CEFMi website contains model policies and answers to FAQs. Get a free trial of CEFMi – a comprehensive resource for school managers containing over 7,000 pages of text, including over 170 policies written specifically for schools.